Sitting of 3 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords],—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:—
Irvine Burgh Bill [Lords],
Redcar, Coatham, Marske, and Saltburn Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory) Bill [Lords],
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. BOOTH: I object.
Mr. KING: May I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his objection. I have been in close touch with the promoters of the Bill, and though I started with a prejudice against it I now feel strongly towards the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: I cannot accept an arrangement between my hon. Friends and the promoters.
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow (Friday).
East Ham Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline
2168
District Water." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Friday, 11th July, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]
Private Bills (Group E),
Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; that, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Local Government Provisional Orders No. 13) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Private Bills (Group F),
Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills; that at the meeting of the Committee this day a message was received from Major Baring, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of urgent private business, to, attend the meeting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardigan, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third tune To-morrow.
Llantrissant Gas Bill [Lords],
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
Greenock Port and Harbours Bill [Lords],.
Dover Harbour Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
United District Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill [Lords.],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
Ferries (Acquisition by County Councils) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]
Message from the Lords.
That they have agreed to,
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of certain pictures bequeathed by the Will of the late Most Honourable Jane St. Maur Blanche, Dowager Marchioness Conyngham, as Heirlooms, and to declare the trusts of the proceeds of such sale; and for other purposes." [Conyngham Heirlooms Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of personal chattels bequeathed by the will of the late Dame Elizabeth Ann Gomm as Heirlooms, and to declare the trusts of the proceeds of such sale; and for other purposes." [Gomm Heirlooms Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Violet McBride, of 70, Seymour Place, Bryanston Square, in the county of London, with William McBride, her husband, and to enable her to marry again and for other purposes." [McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Conyngham Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
Gomm Heirlooms Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Fifty-seventh Report. of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 757 (Weihaiwei, Annual Report for 1912) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Rule made by the Lord Chancellor under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 and 1891, dated 2nd July, 1913 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Turkey.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government has requested the services of administrators or gendarmerie officers to carry out law and institute reforms in the Turkish Empire; and, in case of the request being granted, what conditions will be imposed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am not at present in a position to say more than that the whole question is under consideration.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether administrators or gendarmerie officers or both are to be sent out, or will officers be sent out who will act in both capacities?
  Sir E. GREY: I have given all the information I have, and I do not know more at the present moment.

  Armenia.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding massacres in Armenia; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no official information, but I have made inquiry whether any such news has been received at Constantinople.

  Chinese Loan.
  3. Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the bankers of the quintuple group issued the recent Chinese loan at a price which, after a large profit to the bankers, offered to the investing public a yield of about 5¾ per cent.; whether he is aware that. the amount of the issue in London, £7,416,000, was subscribed twelve times over; whether he is aware that the City of Montreal issue, £1,430,000, carrying 4½ per cent. and issued about the same time at par, was less than half subscribed by the public, more than half being left to the underwriters; whether he recognises that the issue at a low price with a high yield of stock carrying the diplomatic support of His Majesty's Government. is calculated to affect prejudicially issues of our national, Colonial and municipal stock at prices giving a yield according with ordinary market rates; and whether His Majesty's Government will in future refuse to give diplomatic support of a monopolistic character without reserving control over the financial aspect of the projects supported?
  Sir E. GREY: With regard to the first part of the question, respecting the purely financial aspect of the loan, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 12th ultimo. I am unable to accept the conclusions which the hon. Member has drawn from a comparison between the subscriptions to the two loans referred to. The public are naturally free to choose their own investments, and His Majesty's Government have no control over their choice. Many previous loans both to China and other countries have had the diplomatic support of His Majesty's Government. In this instance His Majesty's Government were only one of five Powers who gave support. without, however, incurring any pecuniary liability, such as a guarantee. With regard to the future, His Majesty's Government will certainly continue to be interested, if only for the benefit of British enterprise and trade, in stability being given to Chinese finance, and I cannot give any general undertaking as to the nature of their action, which must largely depend on the development of the situation. It may be that at any given moment it is undesirable
  2172
  for His Majesty's Government to encourage the issue of loans, and when such considerations are present they will be taken into account.

  Ancient Order of Hibernians (Skibbereen Demonstration).
  5. Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now state that he is aware that, at a public demonstration of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in Skibbereen on Sunday, the 18th May last, four local national school teachers took part in the proceedings wearing the Ancient Order of Hibernians badges; whether the Commissioners of National Education are prepared to sanction this action of the teachers in a district. where a number of the inhabitants, whose children attend national schools, are entirely opposed to the Ancient Order of Hibernians; and what steps will be taken to prevent these teachers from similar party displays in future?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Bin-ell): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that their local inspector has made inquiries and is unable to discover that any national school teachers took part in the proceedings referred to.

  Revising Barristers (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether lie can now state if those members of the Bar who stood as Liberal or Nationalist candidates. at the last General Election and, as revising barristers, revised the voters' lists in South Dublin county and in other constituencies at the last revision, are to be reappointed for the coming revision; and, if so, -will they be appointed for the same constituencies as they then revised?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my previous reply to the lion. Member on this subject. The names of the gentlemen whom it. is proposed to appoint assistant revising barristers for the coming revision have not yet been submitted to me.
  Captain CRAIG: I will put the question down again this day week.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not sure it will be ready then.
  Captain CRAIG: I will repeat the question.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us also how many Unionist barristers will be appointed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say.
  Mr. JOYCE: There will be plenty of them.

  Marriage of Teachers (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now state if, as stated on page 60 of Section 2 of the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners of National Education for the year 1910–11, the Roman Catholic bishop of Down and Connor requires women teachers in schools under clerical management to resign their schools on marriage; and, if so, under what rule of the National Board or by what other authority is the Roman Catholic bishop of Down and Connor empowered to make rules with the object of depriving public servants of their positions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the statement referred to is taken from a report furnished by one of their inspectors to the senior inspector of the circuit. They have no knowledge of the accuracy or otherwise of the statement.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  S. Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether a vote of subscribers to the Irish Constabulary Force Fund was taken in 1893, when, for reasons then existing, the proposal to wind up the fund was defeated; and if he will say why a vote is not taken now when those reasons no longer exist and when more than 90 per cent. of the subscribers desire the fund to be wound up?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, this fund was created by Statute for the benefit of widows and orphans of subscribers, and ought not to be diverted from that purpose unless it can be shown that owing to change of circumstances the original trusts cannot properly be executed. The matter is not one to be determined by the votes of the existing subscribers.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether, when conceding a partial inquiry into the administration of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund in response to the complaints of the subscribers, he consulted those subscribers as
  2174
  to the character, scope, and object of the inquiry; if not, on what grounds the usual practice in dealing with public servants was departed from in this case; and how and when it is proposed to deal with the many matters of complaint which the investigations of an actuary do not reach?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The inquiry which is in progress into the state of the Constabulary Force Fund is an actuarial one, and there was, therefore, no necessity for consulting the subscribers as to its scope. Any complaints with regard to the administration of the fund which may be made will receive careful consideration.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask what consideration the right hon. Gentleman is giving at the present time to the almost universal complaints of this body?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not conscious at all of "almost universal complaints."
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he will specify the enactment, if any, supposed to give power to pay to the widow and children of a non-lapsed subscriber to the Irish Constabulary Force Fund less than the subscriber paid into that fund?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The scale of gratuities. to widows and children is not fixed by any Statute, but by the rules framed under the authority of the Statutes governing the fund. Every gratuity is paid in strict accordance with these rules. Gratuities are, as a rule, far in excess of the amount contributed to the fund by the deceased subscriber. In some few cases, when a deceased subscriber only leaves unmarried daughters over eighteen years of age, without a mother, the amount of the Grant may happen to be less than the amount subscribed.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the practice of paying out of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund rewards for meritorious service was introduced by Inspector-General Sir John Stewart Wood; whether this officer was afterwards dismissed for insubordination; and whether there is any statutory authority for the system introduced by him of paying such rewards out of the contributions of the men?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Act of 1836, which created the fund, provided for the payment of rewards out of it. Sir John Stewart Wood was not dismissed. He

  2175
  retired in 1876, owing to ill-health, after many years of good service, and was awarded the highest pension possible.
  Mr. GIN NELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will specify the authority under which, when the Irish Constabulary Force Fund was divided into two branches, one source of revenue, till then subject to the trusts to which the benefit branch is now subject, was cut off from that branch and transferred to the reward branch?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The separation of the receipts from fines and penalties from the receipts arising from deductions from pay and pensions was made under the authority of and in the circumstances explained to Parliament by Treasury Minute of 20th February, 1891. It was one of the conditions under which Parliament was asked to Vote £150,000 for the benefit branch of the fund. By this division the benefit branch of the fund gained, being saved all liability for payment of bounties and rewards, which, prior to 1891, were a charge against the assets of the whole fund.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will state the gross assets of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund on the appointment of Colonel Hillier to the Inspector-Generalship in 1876, and at the end of his term of office, respectively; whether the insolvency of the fund was the result of the practice introduced by him of making grants out of it to head constables on promotion to district inspectorships; and will he state the statutory authority, if any, for the practice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The amounts to the credit of the fund on 1st April, 1876, were: Stock, £59,047, and balance on Current Account, £7,170; and on the 1st April, 1882, the amounts were: Stock £90,533, and balance on Current Account, £1,666. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the negative. As I have already informed the hon. Member, these payments were made in accordance with the Rules of the fund approved by the Lord Lieutenant under Section 9 of the Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act, 1866.

  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether any arrangement has been come to as regards the Grant for secondary education in Ireland or have
  2176
  negotiations failed; will he lay the correspondence on the subject upon the Table; and has the Grant been lost for the present financial year?
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to the facts that the Irish intermediate school year ended in June and that managers of schools usually make arrangements during the summer vacation for new teachers for the forthcoming school year, he can now state specifically if there is any reasonable certainty that managers and teachers can, for this next year, look forward to payment of the whole or any part of the Grant of £40,000 per annum promised last July; and, if there is no such reasonable certainty, will he state briefly the reason and publish the correspondence that has passed between himself and the Intermediate Board and those persons with whom he and the Board have been in communication regarding the draft scheme for the administration of the Grant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The correspondence referred to, which explains the difficulties which have arisen, is now in the printer's hands and will be laid on the Table as soon as possible. It will not be possible to make any payments for the school year which has just ended, but I hope that the Grant may be available for payments in respect of the coming school year. I am not, however, yet in a position to make a definite promise on the subject.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Will the right. hon. Gentleman be able to give an assurance that the £40,000 will be available to enable teachers to make their arrangements during the month of July?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That assumes that the £40,000 will be available. I can only say I hope it will be.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the £40,000 will be available?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I cannot.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Last year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I said that it would be available if I came to an agreement with the powers concerned.

  Trinidad.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement with regard to the date when the Crown lands of Trinidad,

  2177
  which have been locked up awaiting oil developments, will be again brought into use for agriculture where suitable?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr Harcourt): I would refer my hon. Friend to Schedule C to the prospecting licence printed in Command Paper 6861, from which he will observe that special arrangements have been made to facilitate the disposal of Crown lands for agricultural purposes.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to inform the House by what means he or the Governor of Trinidad propose to check the appointment of directors by the British West Indies Petroleum Syndicate, Limited, under the terms of their secret agreement, for the purpose of the provision which lays down the conditions as to the nationality of the chairman and a majority of the directors in companies holding oil agreements?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In reply to a question on 30th June, I stated the effect of the clause of the proposed lease dealing with the British character of any company that may hold it, and mentioned the precautions usually taken on the subject. If, and when, application is made for a lease, the clause in question will be strictly enforced, but it does not appear desirable to discuss by way of question and answer what steps might be necessary in future contingencies which may never arise.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the agreement which he is en-deavouring to arrange with a corporation wishing to take out oil licences in Trinidad on similar terms to the agreement recently concluded with the United British West Indies Petroleum Syndicate, Limited, he will take the opinion of the Trinidad Legislative Council on the matter before he finally closes the negotiations; and can he make any statement as to the amount of land involved in this new agreement?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The negotiations have been carried on subject to the final approval of the Governor of Trinidad, but it is not proposed to refer the agreement to the Legislative Council. The proposed lease will contain a provision that the total area to be held under it shall not exceed 100,000 acres, but it is not proposed to put any limit to the area over which exploring or prospecting rights may be acquired.

  Holyrood Palace.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state what course must be pursued by visitors desiring to see Holyrood Palace; to whom they should apply for permits; and what kind of guarantees are required from those applying for such permission?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Application must be made to the First Commissioner of Works for the historical apartments. The applicant must produce some reliable evidence that he or she is not likely to abuse the privilege of visiting the Palace.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that practically four communications are now necessary before admission can be obtained?
  Mr. BENN: I would suggest that visitors should write direct to the Board of Works.
  Mr. HOGGE: How are visitors, principally from abroad, to have this information?
  Mr. BENN: I do not know that I can do anything to inform visitors from abroad that the Palace is closed. It is closed in the interest of the nation. I shall certainly endeavour to give the most expeditious admission.

  Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.
  Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under an Order issued by the Customs authorities, the importers of foreign-made boxes have only to sign a declaration that the boxes are intended to contain goods wholly or partly made in Great Britain to free them from the obligation imposed by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887; that goods imported into Great Britain and bearing the names and addresses of traders in this country should be marked with the country of origin; and if so, whether he will consider issuing an Order which will recognise that the manufacturers of boxes are entitled to the same protection under the Merchandise Marks Act as the manufacturers of any other class of goods?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The practice to which the hon. Member is no doubt referring has reference to imported empty boxes which bear marks relating, not to

  2179
  the boxes themselves, but to their prospective contents. I am advised that the practice is in accordance with the law, and I am not prepared to alter it.
  Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the practice is in accordance with the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 or of the Order subsequently issued?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I must have notice of that. I can only say that I am informed that the practice is legal.

  Land Valuation Office.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of persons temporaily employed in the Land Valuation Office at the present time on the temporary technical and clerical staff to whom the sum of £394,230 is estimated to be paid during the current financial years?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On 31st May, 1913, the latest date for which I can give figures, the number of persons temporarily employed in the Land Valuation Office was 4,145.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister Whether it is the intention of the Government to reopen negotiations with the Marconi Company for the supply of wireless stations throughout the Empire; and whether such negotiations will be entered upon while shares in the Marconi Company of America continue to be held by Ministers of the Crown and by the trustee of the funds of the Liberal party?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith):With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General hopes to make a statement at an early date. As regards the last part, I understand all the persons referred to have taken steps to divest themselves of any interest in the shares of the American Company.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Post Office engineer, Mr. Taylor, has been degraded and subjected to an annual fine in the shape of reduced salary for buying a small quantity of the English variety of Marconi shares; whether he has been already sufficiently punished; and can he now be reinstated in his former and salary?
  The PRIME MINISTER:The matter to which the hon. Member refers is one of departmental discipline, and the question should, therefore, be addressed to the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this servant of the public has been severely punished, while Cabinet Ministers for similar actions are allowed to go free?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question should be addressed to the Postmaster-General.

  Lough Erne (Flooding).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can have an inspector sent to inquire into the damage clone by flooding of lands in the neighbourhood of Lough Erne and its tributary, Lough Sillis, county Fermanagh, and into the necessity for drainage of those districts?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that a considerable tract of country on the banks of this river is subject to floods, and that if these floods take place near harvest time they cause much damage; but, unless the people of the locality can see their way to prepare a scheme under the existing Drainage Acts, I do not see how anything can be done for them. Under these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by sending down an inspector.

  General Register Office (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Dublin. Harbour)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether application has been made to him recently by the Registrar-General for sanction to an increase of the staff of the General Register Office?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Registrar-General recently applied for sanction to the appointment of three assistant clerks in his office, and his application has been approved by the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury.

  Trade Boards Act (Laundries).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the laundry industry objects to the Fifth Schedule of the Trade Boards Provisional Order Bill (No. 139), whereby calendering and machine ironing departments in steam laundries are brought

  2181
  under the Trade Boards Act, 1909; that the industry repudiates the suggestion that an appreciable proportion of its employés receive a sweated wage, resents the establishment of an invidious and unjustifiable distinction between steam and hand laundries, affirms that its operations are carried on under thoroughly hygienic conditions, appeals for due notice and investigation instead of sudden and surreptitious inclusion, and maintains that no interference is necessary, as work and hours are regulated by the Factory Acts, wages are good, and relations between employer and employed are entirely satisfactory; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Federation of Laundry Associations, who have petitioned against the Bill so far as it relates to the confirmation of the Order with respect to calendering and machine ironing in steam laundries, will have a full opportunity of presenting their case before the Select Committee of this House, which has been appointed to consider the matter.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that certain societies have refused to pay sick allowance to insured persons unless the specific nature of the illness is stated in the medical certificate; what security such insured persons have against the publicity which may be given to confidential medical certificates by the travelling agents of the society; and whether the Commissioners could give some protection in such a case, especially to women. upon whose health such a specification of disease may have serious detrimental effects?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Wigton on 24th June. With regard to the second and third parts, I have not the slightest doubt that a society would take the severest measures in any case in which one of their agents divulged confidential information of the character referred to, given to him by the insured person, and if any case is brought to their notice the Commissioners will at once communicate with the society concerned.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that doctors are often unwilling to give specific information even to patients?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: I agree. We are trying to see if that can be met in these special cases.

    COSTS AND ARREARS (SOMERTON).
    Major HENDERSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how the figure of £20 0s. 7d. has been arrived at in computing the costs and arrears of contributions under the National Insurance Act at the Somerton Petty Sessions on 26th May, as set forth in a letter from the Insurance Commissioners, O.S. 68?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: When the letter in question was written it was believed that 6s. costs were granted on each summons in the Somerton case, and the figures were based on that assumption. I am now informed, however, by the clerk to the justices that this amount was intended to apply only to the first summons in each case, the costs on the remainder being 2s. 6d. each. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling my attention to the matter; steps will at once be taken to correct the figure.

    BERKSIIIRE FARMERS' LEAGUE.
    Major HENDERSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it has come to the notice of the Insurance Commissioners that Mr. Curtis Bennett admitted on oath the offer he made to the Berkshire Farmers' League to refrain from prosecutions for the first two quarters, provided that benefits equal to those under the Act were paid by the employers; whether this offer was made on the 1st January, in consequence of which on the 13th January members were advised by their committee to work the Act forward from that date; whether the members of the league have been faithful to the agreement contained in the offer; and, if not, what action it is proposed to take in the matter?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: No, Sir. The inspector in question made no such admission, nor did he ever make the offer stated in the hon. Member's question. The inspector on no occasion made any suggestion that an employer who paid any benefits that might accrue due in the third quarter would thereby obtain any relief from the obligation to stamp the cards of

    2183
    the first or second quarters. Whatever misunderstanding may have arisen on other points, the inspector made it clear from the outset that the Commissioners had no power in any circumstances to relieve employers of their liability to stamp the cards, and he made it plain that the Commissioners would feel bound to take legal proceedings in cases where complaints were made to them of refusal to pay contributions. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply that I gave him on the 18th June, from which he will see that all possible steps were taken by the inspector to remove misunderstanding before the third quarter's contributions became payable, and also, I am informed, before the committee actually arrived at the decision referred to.
    Major HENDERSON: I will call attention to the matter on the Adjournment.

    DOCTORS' ASSISTANTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to cases in which the demand of doctors on the panel to engage a temporary assistant for times when panel work is especially heavy has led to friction and resulted in difficulty in working the National Insurance Act; whether the Insurance Commissioners have power to deal with the right of doctors to engage assistants; and, if so, what action will be taken?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Under the Regulations an assistant who is not himself on the panel can only treat insured persons on behalf of his principal when the latter is precluded by urgency of other professional duties, absence from home or other reasonable cause, from giving personal attendance to the insured persons under his care.

    National Defence (Universal Training).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that, in response to his request for their opinion, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the most important representative commercial body in the country, has pronounced decidedly in favour of universal national training, he proposes to take any further action in the matter to meet the urgent necessity for adequate national defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom passed a resolution at their annual meeting in April last on the subject of the desirability of a Bill for the adoption of such a course of universal training in discipline and arms for the youth of the nation as would meet the urgent necessity for adequate national defence, and they asked me to receive a deputation on the subject. In reply, I requested the association to place their views in writing, in the first instance. A memorandum was then submitted by the association, which is receiving careful consideration. The question of national defence is receiving the most serious and continuous attention from the Government, and has been the subject of frequent discussion in Parliament.
    Mt. HUNT: Arising out of that reply could not the right hon. Gentleman now allow national training to be a non-party question, if the Leader of the Opposition will do the same? If not, could he say why: for what resaon? Is he afraid of the Labour party, or what is it?

    Mr. Justice Darling.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant time to discuss the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester with regard to certain statements of a partisan and political character made by Mr. Justice Darling in the course of a recent trial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see my way to give facilities from the time at the disposal of the Government for a discussion of the Motion referred to.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that an appeal has been entered on account of the remarks to which I have drawn attention, and that therefore unnecessary expense has been caused to the clients? May I further ask him if he remembers the judgment delivered by Lord Macnaghten in the House of Lords in February, in which he states: "A judicial tribunal has nothing to do with the policy of any Act it may be called upon to interpret"; and whether some steps could not be taken to communicate that to Mr. Justice Darling to remind him that he is a judge and not a politician?
    The PRIME MINISTER:If in the action referred to an appeal has been entered that is an additional reason for not expressing an opinion on that particular case. I am well aware of the judgment of Lord Macnaghten to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I can only say that it expresses very admirably and accurately the true character of the judicial function.
    Mr. J. HOPE: May I inquire when the time at the disposal of the Government comes to an end?
    The PRIME MINISTER: At the end of the Session.
    Mr. HOPE: When will that be?

    Charley Secondary School.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether 144 scholars from Chorley elementary schools are receiving cookery instruction at the Chorley secondary school, and that this arrangement was made as a temporary provision many years ago; and whether it is intended to utilise the erection of the new council school at Chorley for the provision of a cookery centre?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question, except that no time limit has been fixed by the Board to their recognition of the arrangements referred to. As I stated in my answer on 5th May, the plans of the new council's school show no rooms for cookery instruction.
    Mr. KING: In view of that arrangement, which is quite contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's own Regulations, will he not impress upon the local authorities the necessity for a proper cookery centre in connect ion with the school?
    Mr. PEASE: I will look further into the matter.

    Towyn Church School.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether a Church school at Towyn. Merionethshire, has applied as a new school for recognition as a public elementary school; whether, as a result of any such application, he has made inquiry as to the number of children attending the school during the past year; and whether he has carried out any inspection of any kind?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. No inquiry as to the number of children attending the school has been necessary, as the managers have supplied me with information on the point. I have not carried out any inspection of the school, since it is neither a public elementary school nor a certified efficient school.
    Mr. OR MSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether Towyn Church school is still being maintained as a school, and, if so, at whose expense; how many children are attending the school; whether he is satisfied with the education given in the school; and whether the premises are reported to be fit and proper for the purposes for which they are being used?
    Mr. PEASE: I understand that the school is still being maintained as a school, but I have no information as to the sources out of which it is maintained beyond the fact that it derives income from endowments. I am informed by the managers that the number of children on the books of the school is 63, and in average attendance 51.9. The managers have stated that the discipline in the school is excellent. I have no information as to the present condition of the premises.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In view of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, does he not think he would be justified in now recognising this school?
    Mr. PEASE: In view of the facts I have mentioned, I am not prepared to depart from the policy of my predecessor in refusing to recognise the school.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say exactly why he refuses to recognise this large and flourishing school?
    Mr. PEASE: The facts are well known to the hon. Member. At one period the average attendance was only fifteen. At that period the school was not recognised, and authority was given to the local education authority to erect another school. That school has been erected, and is sufficient to accommodate all the children in the district. Therefore it does not seem to me, in view of the average attendance at the school, that I would be justified in reconsidering the decision of my predecessor.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman perfectly well aware that the temporary decline in the number of the children at the school was due to the presence of one teacher, and that immediately that teacher went there was, and has been since, a higher average attendance?
    Mr. KING: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask if he will say whether the recognition of this school would not impose a considerable burden, that is totally unnecessary, upon the ratepayers?
    Mr. PEASE: That was one of the considerations—to which my hon. Friend (Mr. King) has referred—that influenced my views in connection with the decision at which I arrived. I am, of course, well aware that it was owing to the inefficiency—if I may use the term—of a particular schoolmaster that the average attendance at that school fell in the way it did; but I may also remind the hon. Member that since 1910 the number of scholars on the register, and the average attendance, have also fallen.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether the children attending Towyn Church school are eligible for scholarships and bursaries at the local county intermediate school; and whether Church children are debarred from benefiting by the Edward Morgan bequest at this intermediate school?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative as under the scheme governing the intermediate school only children from public elementary schools are eligible for entrance scholarships and bursaries. There is nothing in the scheme regulating the Edward Morgan Educational Foundation which debars Church of England children from benefiting by that bequest, but scholarships under that foundation are confined to children from public elementary schools.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether the children attending Towyn Church school are medically inspected; and whether the Church school can be compulsorily closed in the case of infectious disease among the children of the council school or of the Church school?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in 2188
    the negative. So far as I am aware there is no power to close this Church school compulsorily in the circumstances to which he refers.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider this a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs from the point of view of the public health?
    Mr. PEASE: I would rather like notice of that question; so that I might look further into that particular point.

    Tynant, Merionethshire (School).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the
    President of the Board of Education if there is any provided or non-provided school at Tynant, in the parish of Maenturog. Merionethshire; whether such schools are recognised as public elementary schools, and, if so, from what date; and how many children were attending such schools according to his latest information and at the time of recognition?
    Mr. PEASE: There is a non-provided school at Tynant which has been recognised as a public elementary school since 1876. The number of children in average attendance for the last school year was thirty. I am unable to give the figures at the time of recognition.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right Gentleman say to which denomination this non-provided school belongs: is it a Church or a Methodist school?
    Mr. PEASE: I am afraid I do not know: I would like to have notice of that.

    Elementary Education (Expenditure).
    Mr. C. BATH URSTasked the President of the Board of Education if, in view of the increasing expenditure of local education authorities in respect of the salaries of teachers, and their present inability to meet their reasonable demands, in face of the opposition of the ratepayers, he will, after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consider the advisability of providing in the forthcoming Government Education Bill for making the salaries of teachers in elementary and grant-receiving secondary schools a charge upon the national Exchequer, leaving it to the local education authorities to provide out of the local rates for the erection and repair of school premises and all other costs of maintenance?
    Mr. PEASE: I am, of course, considering all proposals which appear to be practicable. I may, however, point out that this proposal would, on the present figures and without any allowance for increase of salaries, involve a charge on the Exchequer of considerably over £17,000,000, and an increase of the existing Grants by more than £5,000,000. The proposal would also involve other administrative consequences, the importance of which the hon. Member with his experience of local government will, I am sure, appreciate.
    Mr. C. BATHURST:Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is only logical seeing that the Government call the tune as regards quality, that the Government should also pay the piper?
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not he better—as an alternative suggestion—to make a good building Grant to the local authorities?
    Mr. PEASE:I am afraid I cannot deal with that question at the moment.

    Cruelty to Animals Act (Inspectors).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the names of the new inspectors appointed by him under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876; whether such inspectors are appointed for life or how otherwise; what salaries do they receive; what are their duties; what instructions do they receive with regard to the efficient performance of such duties; and what are the conditions of their appointment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am not yet in a position to announce the appointment of the new inspectors. I have received a large number of applications and I have been in consultation in the matter with the new Advisory Committee, but I have not yet been able to come to a decision owing to the difficulty of obtaining candidates with the special scientific qualifications required for the work who are not at the same time disqualified by the holding of licences or otherwise.

    Child Murder, Derby (Prisoner Respited).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether ho is aware that Minnie Gardiner was, on Saturday last, sentenced to death at Derby
    2190
    for the murder of her illegitimate child, and that the jury returned their verdict with a recommendation to mercy; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. McKENNA: The sentence has already been respited in this case.

    Maypole Colliery (Weighing Minerals).
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a local inquiry has been held into the circumstances under which the employers at the Maypole Colliery, near Wigan, have deprived the workmen, paid according to the weight of the mineral gotten by them, of one of the places hitherto appointed for the weighing of the mineral; whether, if such local inquiry has not been held, he will see that both the workmen and the employers have a full opportunity of stating their case at any inquiry that may take place; whether, in default of such inquiry, he can state under what Section of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts the employers have power to abandon a place hitherto appointed for the weighing of the mineral so long as all the other conditions of the workmen remain unchanged; and, in view of the local feeling that the check-weighers appointed are being unfairly treated, will he cause a test case to be entered to decide the issues involved?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received a report from the inspector as to the arrangements at this mine, but I am quite willing before coming to any decision in the matter to give both parties a full opportunity of stating their views, and I am sending instructions to the inspector to visit the mine for this purpose at the earliest possible date.

    Colliery Deputies (Northumberland and Durham).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received Mr. Redmayne's Report regarding the conditions under which colliery deputies are employed in Northumberland and Durham; whether the communication addressed to the Home Office upon this subject on the 2nd June last has yet been considered; and whether he can see his way to receive a deputation of representatives of the men in order that they may be given an opportunity to state their case?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, I received from the chief inspector a report of his inquiry into the complaint made by the Northumberland and Durham deputies. The complaint had reference to a change introduced by the owners of some mines by which the work of timbering, that has hitherto in these two counties fallen on the deputies, is entrusted to another class of workmen. The old practice, under which the deputies did the timbering, differed from the practice generally adopted in the other coalfields; and the new Act, though it contains a saving Clause which would have permitted the continuance of the old practice in these two counties only, clearly recognises the opposite practice, by which the firemen or deputies give their whole time to inspection and safety duties as the best. I understand that the representatives of the Northumberland and Durham deputies put their case fully before Lord Mersey, who held the recent inquiry, but he declined to alter the Regulations so as to reimpose the old practice. In the circumstances, and as I am advised by the chief inspector that the new practice does not impair the safe working of the mines, but tends rather to increased safety by leaving deputies more time for their inspection and safety duties, I do not think it would be advisable for me to take any action in the matter. Several deputations have already been received by me and by the chief inspector, and the Department is thoroughly acquainted with the views of the deputies, and I am afraid a further deputation would not serve any useful purpose.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.

    COMMUTATION SCHEME.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state when the Report of Mr. Wyatt on the Welsh Disestablishment commutation scheme, from which he quoted on the 30th June, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not propose to lay the Report referred to on the Table. As I stated last Monday, I quoted Mr. Wyatt only for the figures which I gave to the House. On the question of policy Mr. Wyatt has not advised me, nor has he any responsibility for any conclusions which the Government may draw from his figures.
    Mr. MOUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is a rule of the House that a document from which something is cited ought to be laid upon the Table?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have refreshed my memory by looking up the practice, and I cannot find it would apply in this case.

    Cyclists and Motor Vehicles.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the accidents and frequent deaths arising from cyclists hanging on to motor vehicles, he will give instructions to the police to stop this practice?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police reports that the police are alive to the dangers resulting from the practice referred to, and warnings to cyclists have been issued through the medium of cycling journals and otherwise. The powers of the police in this matter are, however, limited, being defined by Section 59 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and it is necessary that they should be exercised with the greatest care. lest accidents result from their intervention.

    Coal Mines Act, 1911 (Rescue and Ambulance Appliances).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to enforce in the Lanarkshire coalfield the Regulations made under Section 85 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, for the provision of rescue and ambulance appliances and the formation and training of rescue brigades?
    Mr. McKENNA: A circular was sent out, earlier in the year to the owners who had not complied with the Rescue Order. A reply was received from the Lanarkshire owners to the effect that immediate steps would be taken to comply with the provisions generally of the Order, but contending that the provision of smoke helmets fed with fresh air by a tube and bellows was a sufficient compliance with the requirement as to portable breathing apparatus. The Home Office cannot accept this view, and the steps to be taken for enforcing the. Home Office opinion are now under consideration. The matter has been unavoidably delayed by the work in connection with the settlement of the general regulations, but will now be pressed on as rapidly as possible.

    Post Office (Temporary Men's Wages).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is yet prepared to make a statement re temporary men's wages; and, if not, when he will be prepared to do so?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The matter is engaging my attention and will be expedited as far as possible.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he told me that the matter was settled about a month ago?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, I do not think I said that. As the hon. Member is aware, these matters do not rest in the unfettered discretion of the Postmaster-General. The Treasury also has to be consulted.

    Ferndale Road Post Office (Clapham).
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Postmaster-General whether a Petition has been received by his Department protesting against the inconvenience caused by the closing of the post office in Ferndale Road, Clapham; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Petition referred to by the hon. Member has been considered and I have given instructions for the opening of a sub-office in a suitable position in place of the office in Ferndale Road, which it was found necessary to close.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the feeling that exists in the borough of Smethwick in favour of a continuous telephone service, in view of the urgent necessity for some means of giving information in cases of sudden outbreaks of fire occurring at night or on Sundays; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A continuous telephone service already exists at the Smethwick Exchange, and will be maintained.
    Mr. DENMANasked the Postmaster-General for the total sum which it is now agreed shall be paid to the National Telephone Company in settlement of their claim under the purchase agreement?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The award of the Railway and Canal Commission assessed the value of the National Telephone Company's plant, property and assets purchased by the Post Office at £12,515,264. The company were also allowed their costs in the valuation proceedings. An appeal against two items of the valuation was lodged by the Post Office, and a cross appeal against the award generally by the company. Under an arrangement made between counsel, subject to Treasury approval, the appeal and cross appeal were withdrawn on condition that the purchase price of the plant and other property should be reduced by £45,000, and the company should waive the payment of their costs, for which a claim of £122,000 had been made. The total sum payable to the company was therefore reduced to £12,470,264, which compares with the original claim of the-company of £20,924,700 for plant, etc., and £122,000 for costs.

    House of Commons Dining Rooms (Smoking).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the right hon. Member for the Epping Division, as chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will state at what hour it is permissible to, smoke in the dining rooms?
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: There is a rule of some years standing laid down by the Kitchen Committee that smoking in the Members' dining room before dinner should not begin before 8.30 p.m. That rule still remains in force, and instructions have been given that the notice which has been removed should be replaced. As there is never smoke without flame, I confess I have received a good many complaints on the subject of smoking, and I trust that the smoking Members of the House of Commons will consult the convenience of the non-smoking Members as much as possible.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to claim Undeveloped Land Duty from an incumbent being a corporation sole in respect of lands held by him by virtue of his office?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): An incumbent holding glebe lands in virtue of his benefice is not liable to Undeveloped

    2195
    Land Duty in respect of such lands while they are actually occupied and used for Church purposes.

    Barron's Cement Company.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the liquidator of Barron's Cement Company, Limited, which, on the sale of its interest as a going concern, including freehold land at Rainham, Kent, in October, 1911, went into voluntary liquidation, cannot distribute the assets of the company owing to the delay of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue in issuing a certificate that no Increment Duty is payable; and if he will inquire into the cause of the delay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The liquidator of the company was informed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on 24th April last, that no Increment Value Duty was payable on the occasion of the sale referred to. No further intimation on this subject is necessary to enable the liquidator to distribute the assets of the company.
    Mr. BOYTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that a mere letter is sufficient authority for a liquidator to distribute the assets of the company?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the view taken by the Inland Revenue.

    Hibernian Military School, Dublin (Mrs. Eliza Silke).
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Mrs. Eliza ilke, late matron of the Hibernian Military School, Dublin, after long years of faithful service, in which her zeal and efficiency was acknowledged by all, was retired by the Treasury on a pension of £40 16s. 8d., although her salary, with emoluments, was estimated at £99 9s. 8d.; on what basis was this pension arrived at; what would be the pension of a Civil servant other than a teacher who served as long as Mrs. Silke at such a salary; and did the War Office concur in the Treasury decision?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Mrs. Silke was awarded a pension of £40 16s. 8d calculated upon her service in an established capacity up to the age of sixty-five, and her pensionable emoluments of £87 10s. ld. in accordance with general Civil Service rules. I regret to be unable to make an exception to those rules in her case.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of the question which asks what would be her pension if a Civil servant other than a teacher?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I overlooked that; if the hon. and learned Member will put it down I will answer it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is down.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PENSIONS COMMUTATION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he will look into the question of reducing the rate of interest to be charged under the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871, he will take into consideration the modification of the rules for the commutation of pensions by officers of the Army on lines similar to those recently published by the Government of India, namely, on a 3½ per cent. basis instead of a 5 per cent., and the limitation of the amount to be commuted to a quarter or to, at any rate, not more than a third of the amount of the pension?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. and gallant Member on this subject on the 21st January last. An amendment of the Pensions Commutation Act would appear to be necessary to effect the change suggested, and so far as the Army Council is concerned I can hold out no hope of such legislation being undertaken.
    Colonel YATE: Will the Army Council press the question upon the Treasury?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member has already addressed a question to the Treasury.
    Colonel YATE: Is the hon. Member aware the Treasury said that they would look into it? Will the Army Council now make their representations?
    Mr. BAKER: It is a question of time. I can hold out no hope that legislation will be introduced. I have consulted my right hon. Friend.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (REVIEW IN HYDE PARK).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue

    2197
    a Return of the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the Territorial Infantry who are expected from returns to be present on parade at the review to be held in Hyde Park, on the 5th July next, showing the number who have passed the standard test, the number who have not fired the standard test, and the number who have fired but failed to pass the standard test for musketry; if he will give the number of them who attended camp for the full period of training last year; and the number of non-commissioned officers and men of less than nineteen years of age?
    Mr. BAKER: This information could only be obtained by calling for special returns from every unit after the review has taken place.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether in the sale of the estate of Lord Holmpatrick, Coolagh, Clonaslee, Queen's County, to the tenants, which took place about two years ago, it was stipulated that 100 acres of land on the landlord's hands was to be divided between four small tenants on the property; whether an inspector from the Estates Commissioners, named Beckett, who visited the lands recently, stated that those 100 acres were going to be given to the herd heretofore employed by the landlord; and can he say what course the Commissioners propose to adopt in the case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale to the Estates Commissioners, but the property has not yet been acquired by them. They are not aware of any such stipulation as that referred to in the question or of the statement attributed to their inspector. The Commissioners have not come to any decision as to the allotment of the untenanted land which appears to comprise mainly cutaway bog, but when they are dealing with the property the circumstances of the occupiers of small holdings will be considered.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Marquess of Sligo, in his offer to sell his estate, county Mayo, to the Congested Districts Board proposes to reserve any lands other than those comprising Westport demesne; and if so, can he specify such lands?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are in negotiations with the Marquess of Sligo, regarding the purchase of his estate, and they are not in a position at present to give the information asked for.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 1st July, in which he suggested that the system of land purchase in Ireland operated unduly in favour of the landowner and involved a burden on the taxpayer appropriate to be borne by the landowner; whether the view so expressed was the considered opinion of the Cabinet or a merely personal expression by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to remedy the suggested wrong?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand my right hon. Friend to have referred to the Irish legislation merely by way of illustrating the economic effects of a low rate of interest. The Government are considering, and will very shortly introduce legislation to deal with the difficulties which have arisen in connection with land purchase in Ireland.
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Murphy estate at Castleplunkett, county Roscommon, has yet been acquired by the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, whether he can give an explanation of the delay in the negotiations connected with the sale of this estate, the acquisition of which is much needed by the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the locality?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have made an offer for the purchase of this estate and they are at present in correspondence with the owner regarding it. There has been no avoidable delay in the matter.

    Civil Service (Second Division Clerks).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether assistant clerks who have been exempted from further examination on promotion to the second division are required to pay to the Civil Service Commissioners a fee representing the difference between the fee charged in respect of the assistant clerks' examination and that of the second division examination; whether assistant clerks who are examined in one subject only, e.g., copying manuscript, are

    2199
    required to pay a fee of 30s.; and, if so, whether the Commissioners regard this as being necessary to cover the expense to which they are put in holding such an examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An assistant clerk on promotion to the second division is not required to pay any further fee unless he is required to undergo a further literary examination. If he is examined in one or more subjects he is required to pay a fee of 30s., being the difference between the amount (£2) leviable in respect of appointment to a second division clerkship and the fee (10s.) which he has already paid in respect of his appointment of assistant clerk. The amount of the fee does not depend on the number of the subjects in which he is examined.

    Assessment of Agricultural Land (Scotland).
    Mr. HEWINSasked the Secretary for Scotland whether there has been any change in the method of assessing agricultural lands in Scotland since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation; in how many parishes at the present time under what is known as the "classification system" are the occupiers of agricultural land, by consent of the ratepayers, assessed for the poor rate, education rate, burial rate, and registration rate at a lower rate than the occupiers of other properties; and by how many parochial boards in boroughs with populations exceeding 10,000 has the same system been voluntarily adopted?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second and third parts of the question, classifications allowing a lower assessment for agricultural land Han for other property in terms of Section 36 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, exist, according to the last Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, in fifty-seven parishes, of which eight, namely, Dundee, Forfar, Greenock, Inverness, Kirkintilloch, Montrose, Paisley and Stirling, appear to be wholly or partly comprised within burghs with populations exceeding 10,000. The classifications have in all cases been adopted by the parochial board or parish council with the consent of the Local Government Board or its predecessor, the Board of Supervision.

    Members of Parliament (Salaries).
    Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been repaid or not claimed by Members on account of their salaries for each year, respectively, since the introduction of the system; and in what account such saving to the Treasury is shown?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that the amounts are as follows: 1911–12; £4,276; 1912–13 (approximate), £4,400. These savings are included in the Appropriation Account of the annual Vote.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister upon what date he anticipates that the Finance Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, and the Revenue Bill will be sent up to the House of Lords; and whether he proposes to follow the precedent of February last and adjourn this House for three weeks after all these Bills have been sent up to the House of Lords?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill has already received the Royal Assent. As regards the other Bills, I should not like to commit myself to a date. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business for next week will be?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow we hope to complete the Committee stage of the Plural Voting Bill, and, if time permits, the Committee stage of the Money Resolution of the Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Inasmuch as no notice has hen given of any suggested Amendment, on Monday we shall take the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill; and
  On Tuesday, the Third Reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  On Wednesday, the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill.
  On Thursday, the Third Reading of the Plural Voting Bill, and, if time permits, same of the other Orders on the Paper.
  On Friday, we shall take any suggestions and the Third Reading of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, and some of the other Orders on the Paper.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is there to be no opportunity for suggestions unless notice is given of them a long time before the Third Reading?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have had A week now in which notice could have been given. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends that they had expressed publicly their intention of not making any suggestions.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite true so far as we are concerned, but I understood that the House of Commons was to be given this opportunity and not the Opposition, and it was for that reason I expected some opportunity would be given.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Notice Paper has been open for a week, and in the case of one of the Bills, the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, such notice has been given. In regard to the other Bills, I do not see any notice, and therefore I presume no suggestions are going to be made.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: When is the Land Purchase Bill going to be introduced? Can the right hon. Gentleman say if we shall have any opportunity of discussing it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There will be no delay about it, and it will be introduced very soon. It is in a very forward state.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he was doing last night?

  SOUTH AFRICAN MAIL SHIPS.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the days of sailing of the South African mail ships?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have for some time been anxious to arrange for an alteration in the present days of sailing so as to remove the inconvenience now felt by business men and others in this country, who have no interval in which to reply to letters received by the incoming mail from South Africa before the next outgoing mail leaves. I am glad to be able to say that the difficulties which attended a rearrangement of the sailing days have been overcome, and that on and from 6th September next the mail steamers will leave Cape Town on Saturday, instead of on Wednesday. The mails will then reach this country on Tuesday, instead of on Saturday as now, and an interval of four days will be afforded for reply before the outgoing ship leaves on the following Saturday.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  FACTORIES (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.
  "To amend the Factory Acts in relation to hours of labour." Presented by Mr. CROOKS; supported by Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Gill, Mr. Hills, Mr. John Lyttelton, Mr. Parker, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Glanville, and Mr. Charles Duncan; to be read a second time upon Monday, 14th July, and to be printed. [Bill 235.]
  COMPENSATION FOR MINERAL, DAMAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to feus and leases for building in Scotland, and to secure compensation for injury caused by mineral workings." Presented by Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR; supported by Sir Walter Menzies, Sir Henry Dalziel, Sir William Beale, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Pringle, and Mr. Whitehouse; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]
  PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES BILL.
  "To amend Section nine of the Finance Act, 1908." Presented by Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 237.]

  SUPPLY.— [THIRTEENTII ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in the Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.— [Progress.]

    INLAND REVENUE (Vote 2).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1, 194,130, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department." [Note.—£850,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I beg to move "That Sub-head A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
    The reason I have given notice of this reduction is to call attention to the present unsatisfactory system of clerical assistants in the offices of the surveyors of taxes. This is a matter of great importance, because it affects not only the taxpayer and the revenue of the country, but it also
    2212
    affects very seriously the surveyors of taxes to whom the collection of revenue is entrusted, and more particularly the clerks who are employed by those surveyors. I think that the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be more properly directed to looking after the administration of such an important Department than, as he has announced his intention of doing, giving up a certain amount of his time to hurling javelins at his political opponents. The present staffing of the offices of the surveyors of taxes has not been built up on any system at all. Originally the Income Tax was not looked upon as a permanent tax; it was for many years looked upon as merely a temporary expedient in order to raise money. When it was reimposed in 1842, it was then only on a temporary basis, and naturally the staff which was appointed to collect the Income Tax and administer it was restricted as much as possible. Up to the year 1868 the surveyors of taxes instead of having a regular staff, were allowed a certain sum for clerk hire in each year. I do not think that at the present time anyone will suggest that the Income Tax is only of a temporary nature. Indeed, the present Prime Minister, when he was
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Budget in April, 1907, said:—
    "I start with this proposition, and a most important proposition it is that the Income Tax must now be regarded as an integral and permanent part of our financial system."
    I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he himself, in his now famous Budget speech of 1909, said:—
    "The Income Tax, imposed originally as a temporary expedient is now in reality the centre and sheet-anchor of our financial system."
    I do not base my case merely on the fact that the Income Tax is now of a permanent nature as against that of a temporary nature as formerly; I claim that owing to the present Government, whether rightly or wrongly, the Income Tax is of a different and much more complicated character than previously. Owing to the Budgets of 1907 and 1909 a great deal of added responsibility has been cast upon the surveyors of taxes. The differentiation between earned and unearned incomes, the Super-tax, and such measures as those have added enormously to the complication and responsibility of the duties of those who are in charge of the Department under the Inland Revenue. The Prime Minister in 1907 said.—
    "The Income Tax, as it is one of the most productive, so it is one of the most delicate parts of our fiscal' machinery. There is nothing like it to be found anywhere else in the world."

    2213
    And from that time onwards the machinery has been made more complicated and more difficult. Sir Matthew Nathan, giving evidence before the Royal Commission last year, said:—
    "The whole position as regards Income Tax has so enormously changed. Whereas in old clays the Income Tax had all the sweet simplicity of the Three Per Cents., there is no sweet simplicity left about it."
    Surely if that is admittedly the case—and I do not think it is disputed that it is a complicated and difficult tax to collect— the House cannot be in favour of the present system by which the majority of the men to whom is entrusted this delicate task are not on the establishment, are not Civil Service officials, appointed by open competition, but are temporary employés in most cases on merely a weekly agreement, receiving undoubtedly low wages, if not underpaid. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he really seriously defends the present condition of affairs, if he thinks that it is going on indefinitely, if he does not admit that a great many duties have been added to the surveyors in recent years, and if he does not also admit that the rate of pay has not increased since 1990, although the duties have increased in volume and complexity? It must be apparent to anyone in this House—all of us have some experience of the Income Tax, although A are treated somewhat generously in regard to £100 out of the £400 we are given—that in the offices of the surveyors of taxes there are annually hundreds of thousands of returns of different peoples' incomes, the total income from all sources, the profit and loss accounts of large and small trading firms, the balance sheets, and, indeed, the most confidential information relating to every man's private income and every business undertaking, matters which are naturally always kept under lock and key in the rooms or offices of business firms. The information is obtained by the surveyors and is at the disposal and use of the clerks who are employed by them on a weekly agreement. This is a matter about which many complaints have been made. A resolution was passed unanimously by the Associated Chambers of Commerce in March last year protesting against this system by which people are bound under the Income Tax laws to disclose their private affairs to people who, at any rate, are not under the restrictions or responsibility as they should be and would be if they were placed on the establishment of the Civil Service. I would ask
    2214
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he does not really think that men who have this information at their disposal, who have got this secret information, should at any rate be as well treated and as carefully guarded as officials in the Post Office—as postmen, telegraphists, or sorters? Surely, if it is necessary in the interests of the public and the Civil Service that postmen and sorters and others should be on the establishment, it is at least as important that these men should be! Possibly we may be told that the matter is under consideration, and that they have been considering it in the Department for some time. I say that this is not a matter for a Departmental Committee to inquire into. It is not a matter of pounds, shillings and pence; it is not a question whether the Treasury can afford it or not. It is a question of principle, and we ought not to tolerate this state of affairs any longer. The time has arrived when this thing should be done without any further delay or any further putting off—that is, front the point of view of the public and of the taxpayer.
    But what as to the point of view of the clerks themselves? Under the present system what inducement is there for them to remain, or, indeed, in the first instance, what is there to attract the best class of men to enter this service and to seek appointments in these offices? Naturally the other Departments of the Civil Service, which offer better pay, to be followed by a pension, have the pick of the young men who wished to enter the Civil Service, and an important Department like this should be able to offer inducements greater than any railway company or private concern. It should be the aim of the Inland Revenue Department to draw around it for this important work men of the very best class and of the highest capabilities. Instead of that, the men who are in the first instance attracted there are given no security of tenure, and they are constantly, and very naturally, looking out for something better, something by which they may earn some reward or some provision for their old age. It is not as if the office of a surveyor of taxes can be said to be very popular in a district. It is not a very rosy thing to be a surveyor of taxes or to be employed in his office. It is not the most pleasant occupation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said that those who went in for politics must not expect to make money. But, at any rate, they have the hope of some other reward. They have the

    2215
    hope of gratifying their ambitions. But a man does not enter the office of a surveyor of taxes merely for the sake of satisfying his ambition. He does so to get a living, and he naturally wants a decent living. He expects a fair wage and proper security of tenure, and, unless you give those conditions, you will not get the best class of men around the surveyor.
    This matter has been before the House for a long time. These complaints have been voiced for years past, and I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day to give us some definite assurance that some steps should be taken in the direction I have indicated. I would remind him, in case his memory requires refreshing, that at the present time there are, roughly, about 400 districts in the United Kingdom from which taxes are collected. There are something like 399 or 400 surveyors; they have, I believe, 227 assistant surveyors, and, under those again, there are at the present time, 727 clerks, in addition to 313 boy clerks. Out of the 727 clerks, only 230 are established as Civil servants. The rest, over 500, are temporary men engaged on weekly terms. The 200 who are established were only placed on the establishment after an agitation lasting some time, in the course of which great pressure was put upon the department. For all these men, whether they are on the establishment or not, the highest salary at the present time attainable is £182 per year, and only about 11 per cent. of the 700 have reached that figure. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that £182 per year is really an adequate living wage for these men—men who have to keep up a certain position, and sometimes have to work almost day and night? Further than that, it is not merely routine work. It is work of extreme complexity, and, certainly, it is anything but pleasant; yet, at the present time, that is the highest wage received by clerks to surveyors.
    Just look at the other side of the question. What are these men asked to do? What is that they are called upon to collect? Last year, the total revenue raised by these men in taxes, of which they are entrusted with the collection, exceeded £40,000,000, for Income Tax only, and the gross assessments with which they have to deal are over £1,000,000,000. The repayment claims which were dealt with two years ago—I have not the figures for last year—came to over half a million. The
    2216
    surveyors themselves are directly responsible for all these duties. Yet they have to look to these clerks—these temporary weekly clerks—to carry out their responsible duties. They have the responsibility for the collection of £40,000,000 a year, and much of it falls upon these poorly paid temporary clerks under them. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take any one district he likes. Probably there would be one surveyor and one clerk, not on the establishment, with the addition of a boy clerk. It is only fair and reasonable to expect that the surveyor should, some time during the year, have a holiday. He will have to go away, at any rate, for some twenty or thirty days in the course of a year, to see the assessors and collectors in his district. While he is away he has to put entire trust and confidence in the man under him in his office. He has to entrust his whole correspondence—his private correspondence and the whole of his books and papers—to the clerk whom he leaves in charge. I say that that puts a strain upon the surveyor which is entirely unfair, for if there is a leakage or a mistake he has to bear the brunt of it. He is a Civil servant liable to lose his pension through irregularity or incompetence. Yet he has to go away and leave all these things in charge of a man employed only by the week. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask anyone in this House, if it is fair to place the surveyors in such a position. Again, speaking both from the clerk's point of view, and from the surveyor's point of view, it cannot be denied that the work is of a highly technical character. A man who has to examine into the profits or losses of a trade, to allow depreciation, to make detailed examination of the accounts of perhaps a large company or a small firm, must be a man of considerable ability. I may quote the words of one of the chief officials of the Inland Revenue Department, giving evidence in 1904 in regard to this question. He said:—
    "The man requires to know the income Tax law and practice, and to have some experience as well as some technical knowledge before he can examine a claim."
    4.0 P.M.
    Yet the man who can do that is only given security of office for a week. He is paid at the most £182 a year, and a very small percentage of them reach that figure. It must be remembered, too, that the information he requires is not always given with readiness and eagerness. If a man gets a claim for Income Tax and is asked to prove how much money he makes, the

    2217
    chances are that he, or even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, faced with such a question, would say, "You must find out for yourself." You do not give information very readily to the first man who comes along, and far less readily to some official who may be gone the next day and be engaged by your rivals, and who will have an opportunity of telling them what takes place in your own business. That is most important from the point of view of the traders. Those men who have no security of office may easily be engaged by rival firms and give the whole of the confidential information they have seen through examining the books, which they have a right to do, if they so desire—I do not say they do it—to another firm. Added to that, there is at the present time a very small desire to let things pass. In the old days, when the Income Tax was not so high, when it was 7d. or 8d., people would often pay, even if they were assessed higher than their income, rather than have the fuss and annoyance of disclosing their books or making an appeal. Now that taxation has reached such a high point people will rather go through all the trouble and have their books examined than submit to taxation which is a great deal higher than they are legally bound to pay; therefore it is not only necessary that the surveyors and those under them should not only be diligent, but they have to give more information and they have more appeals, interviews, and correspondence than formerly. I could go into further details as to the position of the surveyors themselves, but I will not weary the Committee. I could state case after case where surveyors have broken down under the strain which has fallen upon them. The strain now is a growing strain, and the time has now come when no further delay should be brooked, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make up his mind to face this difficulty and treat these men more fairly than is being done at present. The present system casts a strain on the surveyors. It is unfair to the public that they should have their books examined by men who have no inducement, as they should have, to treat as confidential this private information. It is unfair to the clerks themselves to ask men who are treated in this way to behave as if they were being treated well.
    I should like to bring the matter to a head to-day by putting before the Chancellor of the Exchequer definite proposals
    2218
    which are the outcome of a careful Report made by the surveyors themselves as to what we should do in this matter. I would suggest, first of all, that a rise in pay be given to the clerks, that the pay should be from £70 to £300 a year, that they should all be put on the establishment and all have an opportunity of sharing in the benefits of superannuation, and that they should all be chosen by open competition and not merely nominated, as at the present time. There should be some provision that those who have served their time as boy clerks should be given some service marks, which should count in the open competition so as to give them some chance of climbing up the ladder once they have started up it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, "That is all very well, but where is the money coming from?" I do not think it is really a question of money when so large a principle is involved. Sir Matthew Nathan, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, said that he estimated the cost of dealing with this service upon the lines I have indicated would be £147,000 a year, instead of, as at present, £91,000, or an increase of £56,000 a year. It may be a considerable sum, but it is a sum which would not be ill-spent. It would give greater efficiency and greater security and would meet a necessity which must be admitted by all fair-minded men. We should get a better class of men to apply for the posts in the first instance. We should get the pick, instead of the residue, of those who have passed for other Civil Service appointments and perhaps other more lucrative employment.
    If this change is made, as I hope it will be made before long, the present clerks should be treated in a generous spirit. They should be placed on the establishment, those of them who are worthy, upon the new terms, and all of them should be treated fairly. I do not wish it to be thought from the remarks I have made that I desire in any way to cast discredit upon the present staff or to suggest that the present surveyors have not carried out their duties to the best of their ability. Considering the circumstances in which they have been placed it is extraordinary that there has not been more leakage and less efficiency than we have seen in the Revenue Department. That is no reason for letting the present state of things go on. I would urge that the time has now come when the Chancellor should not merely put us off by saying that the

    2219
    matter is being considered by a Royal Commission and is only one small part of a whole which must be dealt with in its tern. This is something which can be dealt with quite by itself and at the present time. The Royal Commission is not considering this matter; it is considering the question of Civil Service appointments, and these men are not in the Civil Service. In addition to which we all know the delay which accompanies the proceedings and eventually the Report of a Royal Commission. This is a matter in which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will act with promptitude, and that he will give no mere promise to deal with it, but that before the Revenue Estimates come on next year he will remove this grievance, which I believe is a very real one, and is felt to be by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I intend to take a very small part in the present discussion as one interested in the position of the tax surveyors' clerks. I do not wish to make anything like an elaborate statement; that has already been done by the last speaker, but I wish to put the case as definitely as possible before the Committee. Those who care to make the briefest study of the case must agree that these particular men have been in a kind of backwash. The Income Tax began in
    and these men were then employed in an indirect manner by the payment to the surveyor of an amount for clerk hire. After twenty-six years there was a slight alteration. The clerk hire was abolished, and the clerks were employed and paid direct by the Inland Revenue. That went on for another thirty-two years before any alteration was made in the position of these men. The right of dismissal or engagement was then taken away from the surveyors and put within the discretion of the Board. From 1842 until 1908 none of these clerks were on the establishment. There are now 727 of these men, 230 of whom are on the establishment and 500 are left unestablished. A strong case can be made out for the establishment of these men. There are some people who ask for establishment where it ought not to be given, but in this case one can lay down this rule, that where the employment of a certain set of men in a particular kind of work disqualifies them, if they were displaced from that employment, from fitting themselves into any other kind of employ-
    2220
    meat, there is a really good claim for establishment. Coupled with that where the work done by these men implies a certain amount of responsibility and secrecy in the details of the work confided to them, that gives added strength to the request of the men for establishment. When one considers the amount of work passing through the hands of these men, that no less than £40,000,000 of revenue is raised and practically passes through the hands of these men, and that in 1911–12 £1,000,000,000 of gross income was assessed for Income Tax, that over £500,000 was repaid, and that over 1,000 assessors and clerks are engaged in this service, it gives one an idea of the size of the problem to be faced.
    The men concerned are handling Income Tax, Inhabited House Duty, Mineral Rights Duty, and to some extent the Land Taxes as well. One point put by the last speaker was that there is not a large number of these men, but that they are scattered over 352 districts in the country. We are dealing in this case with slightly under 1,500 persons, so that it must be obvious that there must be a small number of people employed in each office. It is obvious that where you have a large office with a large number of men you can afford to have some variation in the qualifications of the persons employed, but that where you have a large number of offices with a small number of people, it is pretty clear that it is essential that the qualifications of each of the men should be reasonably high. That is the case in regard to these men. From the inquiries which I have made it appears that there have been no improvements made in their rates of pay for thirteen years. That would take a good deal of justification at the hands of anybody in this Committee, and I am sure that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor anybody else will attempt to justify, under existing conditions, the remuneration of any section of men standing still for thirteen years. It is an admitted fact to-day that the cost of living has very considerably increased. When one realises that up to 1908 the highest rate of pay among these men was only £2 a week, and that the highest rate of pay to-day is only £182 per year, or a trifle over £3 a week, it is obvious that the margin between that and the cost of living of these people cannot be very large, therefore the cost of living affects the men in these surveyors offices to a very considerable extent. For what are the men asking? It does not seem to me a very great demand.

    2221
    It is a demand which has been made and, I think, met in regard to the second-class officers in the Customs and Excise. They ask that the starting salary should be£70 a year, that it should increase by £7 10s. a year to £150, and that after £150 it should increase by annual increments to £300 a year, plus the establishment of those who are qualified and who are judged by the surveyors to be fit for establishment.
    There is one point in this matter which is of great importance. Although there can be no doubt that this means an increase in the cost of the service in the first place, there is very little doubt in the mind of anyone who cares to understand the matter at all that if, by the increased salaries paid to these men, you get a better selection of men and a higher quality of clerks for these offices, inasmuch as these clerks and surveyors are handling assessments covering roughly £1,000,000,000 a year, there will have to be a very small improvement in the quality of the work they perform before the whole of the difference in the cost of the advance in salaries they are asking for will not only be made up but made up ten times over, and from that point of view it seems to me that there is indeed a very strong justification for some attention being given to the claims of these men. Of course, they are only a small section of the service, and it is obvious on the face of it, from the details that I have been able to glean, that these men seem to have been in a kind of backwash in the past—that is to say, that very little attention has been given to them. They have been allowed to drift, under an antiquated and out-of-date system, and naturally the movement to-day in all sections of business implies that men in all sections of life must expect to improve their condition of life as the business system of the country improves. Therefore, I think these men are thoroughly well justified in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some little attention to this question, for, after all, to these men it is very largely a question of bread-and-butter. I hope, whatever the difficulties and the activities of the right hon. Gentleman may be—and he cannot have very much time to give to a small item like this—the matter will receive his best attention and the men may look forward with some hope to some betterment being made in their conditions of service.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I rise also to support the Motion, and also to
    2222
    endorse what the hon. Gentleman opposite has been saying. This question of the position of surveyors and suveyors' clerks has been brought before Parliament before. In 1898 a really exhaustive statement was prepared by the surveyors setting out the then existing position and asking for an inquiry. The inquiry was not ordered, but at the same time considerable improvements in the conditions of their service were then effected and additional surveyors were appointed, and although that was an advantage it was not adequate, and the position was not then fully dealt with. In 1905 another attempt was made by the Association of Tax Surveying Officers by means of a petition to the Board of Inland Revenue, but that petition was without result. Three years afterwards, in 1908, the same association made a representation to Members of Parliament direct, and, as a result of that, some steps were taken for the first time to put some of these temporary clerks upon the establishment, and about 170 clerks were then placed upon the Board, leaving about 500 still unestablished and still on weekly engagements. But even for them some improvment was effected, because those clerks instead, as hitherto, of being appointed by the various surveyors of taxes themselves, were brought into some sort of regularised system and were appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue. In 1910 a further effort was made by representation to the Board as to the conditions which were then prevailing as to overwork, due largely to the alteration in the Finance Acts by the differentiation of Income Tax and so on, but no alteration was then made. Their position has now, I think, almost come to a crisis, for the efficiency of their work is being affected by the want of organisation in their offices, for which they themselves are not responsible and for which the system under which the clerks are appointed clearly seems to be responsible.
    Even at the risk of repeating some of the information which has already been given by my hon. Friend, I will ask the Committee to consider who these people are for whom we are now speaking and what their duties are. I knew nothing whatever about the internal organisation of an Income Tax surveyor's office until my attention was called to this particular thing. My only contact with an Income Tax surveyor's office did not lead me to any particularly pleasant recollections,

    2223
    and I did not seem to think I owed any particular duty to the courteous but very firm gentleman whom one is accustomed to meet on the occasion of one's visits. It appears that there are some 399 surveyors, whose scale of pay is from £200 to £700 a year, and they have 227 assistants. It is not with regard to their position that we are urging this upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is necessary to realise who they are and what their work is before you can appreciate what their office organisation is and what work is thrown upon the clerks. There are 750 men clerks and 314 boy clerks. Of the men clerks 230 are established. Of these 230 eighty-two have salaries equivalent to about £3 10s. a week—that is, 11 per cent of all the clerks. The highest position to which these clerks can rise when established is to receive an income of £3 10s. a week. Of the other established clerks 150 have an income up to about £3 a week. Under that group of 230 established clerks there are 520 non-established clerks, who are on weekly agreements, appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue, and their engagement is subject to one week's termination. Their general conditions are nothing like as favourable as the equivalent conditions of the Civil Service. They are entitled to twenty-four days of sick-pay on full remuneration if sick, and twenty-four days only of part remuneration if sick as against the corresponding six months' full pay if they are in the Civil Service and sick, followed by six months' half pay, if the illness lasted so long. It is not only in the actual weekly wage, but it is their whole term of service and the sole conditions of their employment. These 520 are paid from 20s. to 50s. a week, and the boy clerks are paid from 10s. to 20s., and they are obliged to leave unless they are absorbed into the position of man clerks when they have arrived at eighteen to twenty years of age, and as a fact, I believe it is true that relatively few of the really best of the boy clerks are absorbed into the position of men clerks, for the very simple reason that in that branch of the Civil Service they are enabled to get a much better position, and the consequence is that it is not the best but rather the second or third-rate boy clerk who becomes a man clerk in the surveyors' department.
    My hon. Friend reminded the Committee of the duties that the surveyors and their clerks have to perform, and, in order to
    2224
    appreciate what the actual duty of the clerk is, one has to realise what the organisation of the surveyors' office is. The organisation of the surveyors' office is the surveyor himself, if in a large district an assistant surveyor, and perhaps two or three clerks and a boy. But if in a smaller district there may be only a surveyor with one clerk and a boy, and it is obvious that if that clerk is a competent clerk he can assist the surveyor in nearly all his duties, leaving the surveyor much freer to do just exactly the highest branch of the work which can alone be done by the surveyor. If, on the other hand, he is not a very competent clerk, it means that the surveyor, instead of being able to do his own work, has to spend a large portion of his time in doing work which could quite well be done by a clerk if the clerk were at all competent. I hope to show that it is in the interests of the Treasury itself that steps should be taken to improve the position of the clerk, so that the surveyors can be free to do the real directing work—the work which they are really intended to do—rather than have to spend a great deal of their time in doing clerical work. It is very obvious that you do not pay a man £200 to £700 a year to lick stamps on envelopes, but if the office boy was entirely incompetent and the surveyor's postage had to be done, he would have to, lick the stamps on the envelopes himself. That is not the thing that happens, but it illustrates what I mean. There is plenty of work for the surveyor to do, and he can do it so long as his time is not taken up by doing inferior work which ought to be done by the clerk, but for that purpose you have to get clerks who arc competent for that work. See what the clerks have to do. They have to deal first of all, in the aggregate, with half a million repayment claims for Income Tax. I do not know whether any hon. Gentleman has ever tried to make a claim for repayment of Income Tax. I have. It is a most amusing occupation if you have patience. It takes a very long time, and a large number of letters and any number of yellow forms have to be filled up. If you have only to do it in one or two cases it may amuse you, but I want you for a moment to think what goes on in a surveyor's office.
    Consider that he himself cannot possibly, if he is going to do his other important work, devote time to consider the detailed claims of very small amounts for return of Income Tax. He ought to be able to leave that to his clerk merely helping him if he

    2225
    gets into a difficulty which the clerk cannot himself deal with. There are some 500,000 of these claims every year. In addition to that, besides having to analyse for the purpose of Schedules (d) and (e) of the Income Tax the statements of profits on trades and professions, the surveyors and their clerks have to consider large and important amounts of corporations and public bodies. It is quite true that the surveyor is himself responsible, but in the nature of things, he ought to be able to rely very largely upon his clerk, and if he is to have the assistance which would enable him to do that, that clerk must have a considerable knowledge of Income Tax law and of recent decisions, and if anyone has any connection with Income Tax law, he will know that it is not to be found in any one book in any clear fashion, but has to be hunted for in all sorts of directions and all sorts of decisions. In addition, he has to check the collector of Income Tax's accounts, and especially to reconcile the statement of uncollected Income Tax which these collectors are bound to return. Each of these separate offices of surveyors is surrounded by, and has attributed to it, a large number of collectors of Income Tax who have to account to them specially for the uncollected tax, and the surveyor has to check these collections or, rather, check the amount of the uncollected amounts with the collectors.
    If there are any objections to the Property Tax or the House Duty Assessment, the clerk to the surveyor has got to deal with these, and for that purpose he has got to be able to understand a lease or agreement, and to have sufficient technical knowledge, at any rate, to consider the various objections that are made to the assessment. The office is a unit, the organisation of which depends not only on the ability of the surveyor, but on the ability of the clerk, and the surveyor's work itself depends upon his being able to rely upon his clerk to do completely the detailed work. The increase of work has been really considerable during the last few years. I will not deal with it in detail. There have been any number of cases of surveyors who have had their clerks breaking down from overwork. I have seen a memorandum which shows some serious cases of early breakdown, and they are attributed to overwork in the various offices. I have seen statements that it is no uncommon thing for a surveyor and his clerk to be working up to
    2226
    eight or nine o'clock in the evening for long periods at a time. If the Committee will consider the matter, they will realise with respect to Income Tax alone how much the work has increased. In the 1907 Budget there was a large differentiation in the tax, and in the 1909–10 Budget the differentiation was carried still further. There were earned incomes and unearned incomes to be distinguished between; claims for abatement on account of children were introduced, and each of these claims means not merely relief for the tax payer, but an immense amount of detailed work in the offices of the surveyors who have to consider the claims. In addition, the Mineral Rights Duty was imposed, and that amounts to £400,000 a year which has also to be handled by the surveyors and their clerks. The future is not very bright either, because Income Tax is now a permanent tax and on a higher scale. The claims for abatement and for the return of payments which have been made are much more insisted upon now than when the tax was lighter. Since the tax has been made higher, the tendency must be to have nicer adjustments of machinery to fit the burden on the various classes. The machinery has to be adjusted for dealing with claims for abatement, and that means new complications in the accounts, and the detailed work in connection with that is considerable. It is easy enough for us in this House to pass legislation imposing the taxes, but the detailed work which falls on the surveyors' offices in the 320 districts throughout the country involves a great deal of extra work.
    There is another point which I wish to mention, namely, that the information which is now in the possession of the surveyors and their clerks is necessarily of a highly confidential nature, and it seems to me that it is of such a nature that it should only be dealt with by those who are employed on Civil Service conditions, and who have the feeling that their whole life depends upon their maintaining the traditions of the service in an atmosphere which prevents them being under any temptation, either for money or advancement in life, to make any misuse of the knowledge they have. I would ask the Committee to remember that a man who is subject to a week's notice is in a very different position from a man who is on the permanent established staff of the Civil Service, and who knows that when he becomes too old to work there is a

    2227
    pension at the end of his service. A man on the established staff has a feeling of responsibility quite different from that of a man who knows that he is liable to be turned off on a week's notice. There is no comparison between the position of the two men, and it seems to me that such important and confidential work as these men perform does require that it should be carried out by men with the high sense of responsibility which a position of permanency gives. I believe it is an economy from the State point of view to have men permanently employed. The efficiency of the surveyor largely depends on the efficiency of the man he employs. If a surveyor has an efficient man who can do the work without bothering him with the clerical work, it is better for the State, but the conditions of the work must be such as to attract the right sort of man.
    The proposals put forward by this association seem to me quite reasonable and moderate. They say that the boy clerks should be given service marks in an open competition for appointments to the men clerkships. That seems to me to be a very good idea, because, without being an apprenticeship for the men clerkships, it does enable a boy who goes into an office to have some better chance of an appointment as a man clerk. If he is given a slight start on the way by an open competition for the position of a man clerkship he has an incentive to do his work well. If you do that, you are lessening the "blind-alley" occupation which exists so long as you turn off a boy at eighteen years of age. By doing that, you are likely to give a boy a permanent object in life, and he, on obtaining a man clerkship, will be able to utilise the experience gained during the few years he was a boy clerk. It is suggested that the men clerks should be on the established staff, and that the appointment should be made by open competition. At present they are appointed without examination at all. Starting at a salary of £70 a year, these clerks should be able to attain, after many years' service, a maximum of £300 a year. Then, in order that there should be no injustice done to those on the staff, the association suggests that the existing clerks should be established; but as they may not all be of the same class and character as those who will be brought into the service after the conditions have been improved, it is also suggested that there should be an efficiency bar at the
    2228
    £150 a year, which is nearly the maximum rate at present, and that unless a clerk can by examination meet the efficiency test he should stop at £150, while, on the other hand, if he can pass, he should go on as if he were a new clerk appointed under the new conditions. The association also says that past service should count for pensions. That appears to me to be an eminently justifiable claim. In regard to the comparison of the position in the Civil Service now with the proposals made by the association, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that if the proposals were adopted there would be given to these clerks a position equivalent to that of clerks in other branches of the Civil Service. I notice that Sir Matthew Nathan, referring to these proposals in his evidence before the Civil Service Commission, said:—
    "They [a Departmental Committee] had made a proposal that the establishment should consist partly of clerks with the same scale of pay as the second division clerks, and partly of clerks with the same scale as assistant clerks, and, to a much smaller extent than at present, of boys; the numbers are 200 on the scale of the second division, 820 on the scale of assistant clerks, and 120 boys."
    That roughly corresponds with what is suggested by the association. Apparently the cost to the Treasury, if these proposals were granted would ultimately amount to £56,000 a year. That is the ultimate but not the present cost, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has often shown his appreciation of the difference between the final cost and the cost that would fall on the present year, will be glad to hear that if these proposals were accepted the cost this year or next year would be only £2,500.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the hon. Gentleman state when the ultimate amount of the charge will be reached?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot say whether Sir Matthew Nathan stated how many years it will take to get to the higher figure, but the actual cost now, as I understand, will be about £2,500 a year. The ultimate charge will only come about after, I think, about twenty years, when the salaries have risen from the starting point to midway, or the average figure. It would then come up to the sum I have mentioned.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is an alarming figure.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is an alarming figure if it is a wasteful figure,

    2229
    but it is not an alarming figure if it is not wasteful—if it is a figure which will recoup itself by more efficient work. If my hon. Friend considers for a moment what is the work of the surveyors and the clerks, he will see that a very little extra efficiency in collecting £40,000,000 of Income Tax, looking at it from the State point of view, will very soon wipe out the extra cost which the carrying out of these proposals might entail.
    Sir F. BANBURY: By putting on the screw.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I observe that my hon. Friend makes mention of the "screw." It is not the screw that is required with respect to existing taxpayers so much as the ferreting out of those who ought to pay and do not pay at present.
    Mr. SANDYS: Is the hon. Member referring to the statement at the bottom of the first page of the evidence?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The figure of £147,000 does not represent the increased cost. That is the total figure. The difference is the figure which I gave. It is not a question of putting the screw on present taxpayers. It is a question of covering the wider area which is not now covered, largely because the surveyors' time is taken up doing clerical work which ought to be done by clerks, and not by surveyors at all. If the hon. Member will think for a moment he will see that if the surveyor—if he were merely an accountant or an auditor—he would want a great deal more than that. But in addition to having knowledge of accountancy, the surveyor is a little bit of a detective, and he has got to use, not merely the checking of the figures, but also his common sense and knowledge to see whether a return given to him is primâ facie correct or not. If he has time he can check it. If not he is bound to take it as given. What we want is that he should have further time, so as to discover easily the amount of revenue, it may be necessary to pay the whole cost of this improvement. But I put it rather on the ground of justice to the clerks and a safeguard to the taxpayers. It is not right that clerks should be expected to work under conditions which a private employer would not think of asking clerks in those responsible positions to accept, because a clerk of this kind is at least the equivalent to the cashier of an ordinary firm who has got to handle money, look after accounts, and have
    2230
    private information relating to his firm's affairs, and is always paid at a higher rate than the clerk doing purely clerical work. These clerks ought not to be compared with people doing purely clerical work. They ought to be compared with those clerks doing confidential work which necessitates their knowing the figures and finance of their employer. I put it, therefore, on the ground of justice to the clerks and also as a safeguard to the taxpayer and the trading firms themselves, so that they may be assured that their figures which are private and confidential, shall only be put before those who are in positions not less responsible than members of the Civil Service. Therefore, I support the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    Sir FREDERICK LOW: I have listened carefully to the speeches of hon. Members opposite and of the hon. Member below the Gangway, and I feel that a very good case has been made out for a consideration of the position of these public servants. It appears that they perform very responsible duties for very inadequate remuneration, and that is a matter which well deserves the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But there is a far more serious phase of the case, namely, the position of the taxpayers. It is a little startling to find that the most private financial and business affairs of the citizens of this country are at the disposition, if they see fit, of clerks who are employed temporarily upon only one week's notice, and who appear to me to be grievously inadequately paid. It cannot be for the interests of a business community like ours—and I speak in the interests of business people—that the figures and statements which disclose the most private matters, and which have, of course, to be placed at the disposal of Government officials connected with the collection of the Income Tax, should go before persons who have neither the responsibility of establishment nor are remunerated well enough to make it worth their while to resist temptation. I know that in my own Constituency there is a strong feeling that persons in placing their private business figures before the tax officials are running a very undue risk. And it is almost horrifying to think that the young man employed at £1 a week, who can be discharged or discharge himself at a week's notice, is by the nature of his employment able to make himself familiar with the financial position, and business secrets of persons who have to disclose these matters

    2231
    for the purpose of Income Tax. And I do very seriously urge upon the Treasury that it is time that this matter were put upon a proper footing, and that matters of this sort should not be liable to be disclosed, for instance by a man who has information of this sort before him, say in order to improve his position; suppose that he gets a situation in the town in which he has been employed, in connection with the collection of the Income Tax—then there is nothing—except, of course, that we know that there is an oath of secrecy, but that is hardly sufficient protection—to prevent a competitor in business finding out matters which might be almost vital to him. Therefore, surely, the time has come when these officials should be placed upon the establishment, so as to have some fixity of tender, in order they may not be tempted to leave their office to improve their position; and, of course, accompanying that there should be adequate pay for the duties they perform.
    The various matters that have been referred to by the previous speakers with regard to the position of these clerks disclose quite sufficiently what the position is, and it is, of course, unnecessary for me to go into them in detail. But I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in dealing with this matter it is of the highest importance to the payers of Income Tax, that the risks at which I have ventured to hint should not be run, and I cannot help thinking that this provision is appreciated at the Treasury, because, with regard to the Super-tax, I think I am right in saying that precautions have been taken to prevent this very position to which I am referring. None of the details that a man has to furnish in order to ascertain whether he is or is not liable for the payment of Super-tax are disclosed to these local officers at all. They are entirely dealt with from headquarters, and it cannot be right that the protection which is given to the highly prosperous persons who are able—and, I am sure, not only able, but pleased—to pay Income Tax, should be withheld from the comparatively poorer people who carry on business in the country, and who in this matter are or may be at the mercy of a grossly underpaid clerk, who holds his position on the most precarious tenure on which a clerk can hold any position, namely, on a week's agreement; and, what is more serious still, can himself leave the service on the same very
    2232
    short notice. I think that what I have said is sufficient to show that there is here a matter deserving of the very gravest consideration of the Treasury, and I am sure that in dealing with these clerks they will see that there is a case for some liberality and for some consideration not only of the clerks themselves, but also for some very grave consideration of the position of the persons who have to make these Returns and have to pay these taxes which are controlled in the offices where these clerks are employed. I trust, therefore, that this matter may not be passed over just by the suggestion that it can be dealt with by the Royal Commission that is sitting, but that some steps may be taken at an early date in order to relieve the public mind of the considerable amount of anxiety with regard to this question, and that the matter may be dealt with as promptly as the Treasury can find it convenient to do so.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I desire, in a single sentence, to associate myself with the hon. and learned Member to whom the House has just listened, and with the remarks that have been made by other hon. Members who have spoken. I feel sure that hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as on the other, concur in the hope that the Government will give very favourable consideration to this case.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I desire also to join in the appeal which has been made from both sides of the House to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that most careful and immediate attention may be given to the matter which has been submitted for his consideration this afternoon. Like my hon. Friend who preceded me I think that there is no necessity to repeat what has already been said and well said. The general proposition is that the terms of service and rates of pay should be fairly commensurate with the responsibilities involved. I think it is manifest to any person in the House that what has been said proves clearly that in regard to clerical assistants to the taxing officers neither condition obtains, and it is vital not only for the individual, but for the community that both conditions should be provided for. Therefore, I urge strenuously and earnestly not by the Royal Commission but by direct consideration on the part of the Treasury that these important matters should immediately be taken into consideration, and I trust sincerely that justice will be speedily done.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: Long before I entered the House I have had my attention called to this matter, and therefore I trust sincerely that the grievance, now that it has been brought before the House, will be removed without delay. I have myself employed a great many clerks and I have no hesitation in saying that in proportion to the responsibilities of the men in this Department the rates of pay are too low. They are lower than the wages which are paid by the best firms, and I cordially trust that a change will be brought about. The facts and figures have been placed before, the House, and they are familiar to every Member, for I presume that each Member has been supplied with the information. But this subject can be approached from two points of view—not only from that of the clerks, but also from that of the public; and so far as the clerks are concerned, I feel certain you would have an infinitely better service if you had a higher-paid service. So far as the public is concerned, I am quite sure that very few persons in the country realise what it is to have their most private business concerns subjected to a body of clerks moved about as those clerks are. I am perfectly certain that most people who make a return for Income Tax do not realise that information most vital to their business, and which a man would do anything rather than reveal, is subjected to a body of men who hold a position of such short tenure. I submit that if the whole standard of the service were raised it would pay the Treasury. In many districts the assessor is employed by the county, and in some cases the change made by employing their own assessor at a considerable higher salary has influenced other county councils to make a change. I am quite sure that if something were done to raise the standard of these clerks' service a vastly greater return would be obtained, and it would pay the Treasury to raise their salaries. I sincerely trust that something will be done.
    Mr. SANDYS: We have had this afternoon an extremely interesting and useful discussion, which has not been less useful or less interesting because it is one of the occasions when hon. Members opposite have thought lit to give us their views and to contribute to the interest of the Debate. As on so many occasions we find, in fact, that speeches are made exclusively by hon. Members who occupy these benches, it comes as a refreshing sign that hon. Members on this question—which I deem is one
    2234
    of considerable importance, at any rate to this hard-working body of men, who are very closely concerned in the matter—should take part in this Debate and express their views ably and fully in reference to the requirements of these clerks, who have found advocates not only amongst those who sit on this side of the House, but also among those who occupy the Liberal Benches, and who make, as a rule, such infrequent contributions to our Debates. Personally, I share the view which I know is held by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and which he has so often expressed in the course of Debates in this House, namely, that it is our duty as Members of the House of Commons to see that the expenditure of this country, which is mounting up by leaps and bounds, is kept within limits, so far as possible. Had it not been for the very excellent case which was made out both by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. R. S. Gwynne) and also by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), and further amplified by speeches of hon. Members on the other side of the House—had it not been for the fact that they made out such an excellent case on behalf of these men, and showed how absolutely essential it is that something should be done to improve their conditions of service and the rate of pay which they receive at the present time, I am bound to say that, for my part, I should at first sight be inclined to oppose this change and this increase of expenditure. I understand that the sum involved will mean an addition of some £56,000 a year—I think that is the actual amount. Sir Matthew Nathan in his evidence estimated that it is the amount which will actually be involved. But I am inclined to think, after hearing the speeches which have been delivered by hon. Members, who have evidently given some attention to the question and studied it, that on the whole this money will be well spent.
    After all, these men who are employed in this particular work cannot be regarded as persons engaged in purely clerical work. Had they been engaged purely and simply as ordinary clerks the scale of pay they receive at the present time would perhaps have been generally regarded as adequate. But these men are employed on work of an extremely confidential character. I think that under existing conditions their position is extremely unsatisfactory, and that they are entitled lb approach hon. Members of

    2235
    this House, as they have approached them on this question, and ask that their position should be improved and that they should have an increase in the scale of salaries which they are to draw. As has been pointed out, these clerks, in the course of their ordinary work, have access to balance sheets, statements of accounts, books, ledgers, and so forth, in connection with various business men and various great companies in this country engaged upon all sorts of work and industry. I think it is highly important that these clerks should be placed upon the establishment—that is what they are anxious to see done—of the Civil Service, so that they may occupy a position not in any way inferior to that which is occupied by the clerks who do very similar work at Somerset House at the present time. I think that the information which they have to obtain in the course of their work with reference to those whose income does not exceed £3,000 a year should be regarded as confidential, and should be kept just as completely secret, and only used for just as strictly proper purposes in connection with the collection of this tax, as is the income of those fortunate individuals who are liable to Super-tax and whose accounts are investigated by officials who occupy a different grade at Somerset House.
    These men, whose case we are considering, are placed in a position of even greater responsibility than the clerks at Somerset House themselves. The clerks at Somerset House are always in touch with headquarters. There are in that great establishment, under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, a large number of highly paid and highly trained officials, whom these clerks engaged in this particular work are always able to consult in exceptional cases, which must always be occurring in this particular work; whereas we find that those men who are employed in provincial districts, in many cases, are actually in charge of the department when the officer responsible has to be away from his work for a great many days during the year. While he is away, in many cases these clerks, who are not established clerks, have practically to be in charge of the office during their superior's absence. Therefore, they are placed in a position, I think, of even greater responsibility than those established officials at Somerset House who have to deal particularly with the Super-tax. I certainly think it is most
    2236
    unfair and most unjust that persons whose income is under £3,000 a year should not receive exactly the same treatment as those who are liable to these very severe taxes which fall upon persons who are more fortunately placed than those in the enjoyment of under £3,000 a year. I think in the course of his speech the hon. Member for Eastbourne made some allusion to the Report passed in 1912 by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. The resolution of that body, passed in March, 1912, is as follows:—
    "That in the opinion of this association, the present system of employing temporary clerks in the office of the surveyors of taxes is unsatisfactory, and it gives casual employés access to confidential documents which should he available for use only by the permanent Civil Servants, under the pledge of secrecy."
    That really sums up the situation, and I think it is interesting to know that such a representative body as the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which may be regarded as representative of most of the business interests in the country, have passed that very strong resolution. I hope it will have some influence with the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to give his decision upon this question. I understand that this matter of the position of this particular body of clerks has not been adequately gone into in the past. I believe there was an Income Tax Committee which sat in 1904 and in 1905, but that Committee, I suppose, owing to lack of time, did not consider the question of these particular public servants, though I think it would have been desirable had their attention been called to this grievance, which has existed from far earlier than the year 1904. The origin, as has been stated, but perhaps not sufficiently emphasised, of all this difficulty was when the Income Tax was re-established in 1842. It was regarded then, not as a permanent source of national revenue, but as a temporary expedient to meet a temporary difficulty. That temporary difficulty has become a permanent difficulty, and the Income Tax, instead of being a temporary tax, I am afraid we have unfortunately now to regard as a permanent impost upon the taxpayers of this country. It is most unfortunate that it should be so, but I think that is the origin of the difficulty. The tendency naturally was, when this tax was regarded as a tax of a purely temporary character, to look upon the staff which had the collection of the tax and the investigation of the circumstances attending its collection, as being also of the same temporary character. Consequently the staff was kept small, and the

    2237
    system of unestablished clerks was unfortunately introduced. I believe that up to the year 1898 the highest salary which it was posible for one of these men to be paid was £104. I think the maximum which can be obtained under existing conditions is £182 a year; but, so far as I can gather from the information which has been supplied to me by this association, as a matter of fact only about 11 per cent of the clerks are actually in possession of an income of £182 a year. I certainly would urge that this matter should be considered and that it is essential now when the Income Tax has become permanent. I think that is generally admitted and it was emphasised by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime
    Minister made on the 18th April, 1907, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:—
    "The income Tax as it is one of the most productive, so it is one of the most delicate parts of our fiscal machinery.…it has always been palliated on the pound either that the Income Tax was a mere temporary cape bent, or on the ground that it was impossible to make such a distinction without destroying its productivity, and that it was purely a temporary tax put on for the purpose of war.…We now recognise the tax to be a permanent part of our system."
    Not only did the right hon. Gentleman when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and some of us perhaps wish that he had continued to hold that very responsible position, recognise that it is a permanent tax, but it is generally recognized throughout the whole country. Under those circumstances I do sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the arguments which have been brought forward by hon. Members on both sides, and see if he cannot make the alteration which has been suggested in respect of those clerks who occupy this extremely important confidential position, and put them upon the establishment of the Civil Service with all the advantages which the establishment will give them. I also hope he may see his way to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Colchester and give them an increase to their salaries, which at the present time are altogether inadequate for the responsible duties which they perform.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: The subject which is now before the House is one that does not admit of great variety of treatment in that the facts, I think, are generally admitted. I have been familiar with this question for some years and have had the pleasure of knowing several of the surveyors of Income Tax in different parts of the country. I made it my business to
    2238
    take their opinion as to the real position in which they found themselves in reference to their staffs. Further, I communicated with some of the Income Tax Commissioners, who, I thought, could properly discuss this question confidentially, as it affects an important section of the work with which they are charged. In addition to the salaries that are paid there are other items to be dealt with in considering the working of the offices of the surveyors of Income Tax. In one office I know that there are three clerks, one a married man who gets 30s. per week, and the second one unmarried who gets 20s. per week, and the third unmarried who gets 15s. per week. In respect to the access to information, I think it is highly necessary that a new system should be adopted in regard to the papers connected with Income Tax returns. If you go into sonic offices you may possibly find that papers are placed and stored in, such a position that any designing person, even outside the clerks of whom we are now speaking, could avail himself of the information that was there. I do not know if I am correct, but I should suppose that the Income Tax collectors from the various rural districts go into the offices. I do think in the matter of these appointments and the storage of papers there is room for consideration to be given so that the work of the surveyors now under discussion may be more carefully done.
    There is no doubt whatever that to the trader, the returns made under Schedule (d) are of such a confidential character that the greatest anxiety is felt about those returns, be they large or small, and that they should be regarded as confidential and kept within the official secrets of the Government service. I think that this Debate will do good, and that steps will be taken to augment the position so that frequent changes in the staff may be prevented. We cannot expect that the more capable of these clerks would hesitate to take other situations which may be offered to them. Thus, we are justified in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, to take this matter into their careful consideration and deal with it. I do not think it is necessary to go to the length of supplying a clerk at £300 per year in every surveyor's office. That was the maximum figure that was mentioned in one of the reports, but we ought to have men who would support the surveyor. I have had the opinion expressed by some of the surveyors that the

    2239
    clerical work of their office lies at the very root of the dissatisfaction they have and the overtime that has to be worked in their Department. Therefore, I think we can with confidence ask that a sufficient sum of money should be spent, and I think it would be well spent. By doing so we should have the satisfaction of knowing that the traders of the country would have less anxiety about the returns that they make under Schedule (d); and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his permanent advisors will he able to feel that the staffs over whom they are placed shall have the opportunity of rendering good and useful service, being adequately paid by the State which ought never to underpay its servants.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I understand that the Deputy-Chairman did not gather that I moved a reduction on this Vote. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I moved a reduction which was down in my name on the Paper. I now formally move, "That Sub-head A be reduced by £100."
    Mr. WALTER REA:It scents to me that the discussion has turned on two separate points. In regard to one there seems to be remarkable unanimity of opinion throughout the Committee. I would like to express my agreement with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Norwich (Sir F. Low) as to the absolute necessity of ensuring secrecy for those who have to submit their accounts to Income Tax officials. Though it should cost a certain small additional amount per annum to the Exchequer, I am satisfied that it will so increase confidence in the Income Tax officials that the money will be very well spent. I think it does follow you cannot feel satisfied with regard to secrecy if yon do not pay a living wage. If men are employed at £1 or £2 per week, and subject to dismissal at a week's notice, or even worse, there is a temptation to leave the public service and give private information away to trade rivals. That, I think, is a point on which the whole Committee will be agreed. I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very willing to meet us on this point, seeing that when I raised a similar point as to the Income Tax Commissioners he then promised to inquire into the scandals, for they are almost scandals, which have occurred in breaches of confidence in that respect. This deals
    2240
    with an equally serious case, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will take it into consideration at the same time. The actual technical point which we are considering is the question of the amount paid to a certain class of Civil Servants, or, if they are not technically so, they are employés of the State. Here I want to enter a protest against this House having to consider such a matter. I do so with a less reluctance because this seems to be quite obviously a case where the clerks have a grievance and have no other method of getting the grievance remedied than by coming to this House.
    It cannot be a satisfactory way of carrying on the public service that Members of Parliament should be liable to be commandeered by public servants to bring pressure to bear, political vote-catching pressure, on individual Members to come and ask for greater salaries and better pay for their constituents. That is bound to have a bad effect on the public service and worse on Parliament. I am quite sure the lion. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), who is so very anxious lest corruption may creep in with the increase in the number of Civil servants, will agree that it is desirable, if the number is going to increase, that we should have some safeguard that Members of Parliament should not become at the mercy of a very large percentage of their constituents, who may be able to turn an election, and by so doing bring pressure to bear on the candidates to pledge themselves to move for an increase in salaries, possibly even against his better judgment. When the House of Commons comes to consider minor questions, such as this affecting some few hundred individuals, largely as the result of a pressure brought to bear by constituents who have axes to grind of their own, you cannot get a satisfactory decision, and if this grows, as it is tending to grow, and certainly has grown during my short experience in Parliament, I fear that the life of a Member of Parliament will become almost intolerable, and that the public service will become very much less efficient, and that we shall all become mere instruments of log-rollers. I prefaced what I had to say by safeguarding myself in that I had no desire to criticise in the least the demand made by these clerks, who seem to me to be very much underpaid, and who are entitled to better conditions of service and, above all, to longer make from their employers.

    2241 But I do think that it is a very grave danger and a growing one that this matter should have to be discussed in Committee.
    Mr. DENNISS: No amount of pressure from my Constituency would force me to bring pressure to bear on the Government to spend more than what should be usefully spent, but if ever there was a case made out for doing bare justice to a very useful and indispensable class of people, it is this case. It is only on that account that I support it. The Financial Secretary doubtless understands the fact perfectly. We look to him to say that there shall be an inquiry into the matter, that something shall be done to put these clerks on a permanent basis and give them adequate salaries, not in order that they may keep the secrets under their care, but simply as an act of justice, in view of the work they have to do.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): This has been an unemotional discussion, in which all sides of the House have joined with complete unanimity, as is customary in discussions of this and a similar nature. I suppose, if I were to offer strenuous opposition to this proposal, which I have no intention of doing, the only Members from whom I should get any sympathy would be the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). Every proposition of this kind is always accompanied by the statement that if ever there was a case for Treasury expenditure, this is the case. Apart from that, however, I realise that there is a special claim in regard to this particular class of officials. The clerks to the surveyors entered the Civil Service, I think, in some such fashion as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. C. Duncan)—by a back door or a blind alley. Before 1908 they were not Civil servants at all; they were employed by the surveyors of taxes, and could have been employed as purely casual labour. When I hear so much of the danger of this most important confidential information leaking out to the detriment of traders, it is a mystery that that information seems never to have leaked out when these men were not. Civil servants, but purely casual clerk labour employed by the surveyors of taxes.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The information is much more elaborate now.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not contesting in any way the fact that much of the information is confidential. I agree also with the hon. Member that times have changed considerably since these clerks were employed in a more or less casual way. In April, 1908, these clerks were taken over as Civil servants in four groups into the direct service of the Board—two of the groups on the establishment and two unestablished. There are, at the present time, 243 established clerks of this kind, with salaries ranging from £78 to £172 per annum.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is it not £182?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will look into that. There are also 595 non-established Civil Service clerks, with incomes ranging from some £52 to some £130. Adding 303 temporary boy clerks, we have 1,141 of these minor officials under the surveyors of taxes. The hon. Member for Colchester made a good deal of the point that an enormous amount of extra labour has been thrown upon these clerks. That is quite true; but there has also been an enormous increase in the staff. In the last eight years the staff has increased by 97 per cent., that is to say, it has nearly doubled. There are one or two other points of criticism on some of the statements which have been made. For instance, the hon. Member for Colchester said that as a result of the examination and of the very low pay, only the second or third quality of boy clerks were obtained. I do not think there is any evidence of that. I should be sorry to think that they were merely the second or third quality boy clerks. The evidence given before the Civil Service Commission seems to show that at the examination the cream of the boy clerks pass into these offices. The hon. Member opened up the whole question of boy clerks, which I think is the biggest question before the Civil Service Commission, and upon which very strong evidence has been given. As to the question of a week's notice, technically, hon. Members have made their point, but as a matter of fact these people do not go at a week's notice. They are more or less permanent Civil servants, and although they do not get pensions, they get a gratuity at the expiration of their term of service. The precarious nature of their employment sounds very serious when it is stated that they may wander away at the end of a week, and divulge confidential information. But I see no reason why

    2243
    men on the establishment should not do that. As a matter of fact, however, these men stay permanently. As to the whole question of the position of these men, we have never recognised their position as satisfactory. We have always recognised that some change must take place. In his evidence before the Civil Service Commission, the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue stated what was actually taking place before the Commission was appointed. He said:—
    "I think I had better make a short statement with regard to the question of the surveyors' clerks. The surveyors' clerks petitioned some time ago for reconsideration of their position, and the surveyors also complained that they had not the assistance which they thought they ought to have from their clerks, as these clerks were not properly qualified. I considered the matter, and appointed a small Committee to investigate, the Committee consisting of the Deputy-Chairman, the Secretary of Taxes, and the Chief Inspector of Taxes. They recently sent me in a report, which I have under consideration, proposing a considerable alteration in the whole condition of the service of clerks to surveyors—an alteration based on the lines which I more or less suggested, which has, as one of its objects, to stop any blind-alley occupation for boys."
    It may be asked why that scheme of amelioration was not proceeded with. It was largely owing to the action of the clerks to the surveyors themselves. They petitioned the Civil Service Commission to be heard upon their grievance. I am not quite sure whether they were heard, but certainly a memorial was sent it.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Their request was refused.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They petitioned to be heard; the Commission had a memorial from them, and will report on the subject. Here, again, Sir Matthew Nathan, in another part of his evidence, when asked why the scheme for amelioration was not put before the Treasury, said:—
    "The scheme has not yet been put before the Treasury, because it seems futile to do this until we have some indication of what are the views of the Royal Commission. It is no good our recommending a number of boy clerks if the class of boy clerk is no longer to exist."
    In a later answer he states that the Board has sympathy with a subsidiary claim of the surveyors' clerks, that they should count the whole of their prior service towards pension. The Government recognise that something must be done in connection with these clerks, and had prepared a scheme under which something would have been done. The whole matter is now before the Royal Commission. It is not being delayed by the Commission, because I think they are considering their Report, though we have no information as to when the Report will be presented.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the Government act on the Report of the Royal Commission, which has heard only one side?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not committing the Government. I say that the matter is sub judice. The Royal Commission may recommend far larger changes than anything suggested this afternoon. One great question is whether boy labour is to be continued or not. Some of us feel very strongly on that point. They may recommend a rearrangement of the whole condition of these surveyors of taxes and their clerks. If the Royal Commission recommends nothing on this subject, I can only inform the House that we will consider it. But it, would be perfectly impossible for us now to make any alteration, when for all we know a recommendation may come forward altering the whole position of Civil servants, and the whole of this particular Department of the Civil Service. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked whether we did not think we should have something in the revenue statement of this year. That means that by March or by July of next year some definite scheme should be passed. I think by that time, if not by March, certainly by July, the Royal Commission will have reported, and I think I can promise him—and I trust it will satisfy him—that before another year has gone there will be some definite Government proposals for the amelioration of the condition of this class.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman opened his observations by saying that my hon. Friends and myself were the only people upon whom he could count to resist claims of the kind put forward to-day.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: What I meant was the general sort of claim put forward by all parties against the Treasury. I was not referring to this particular claim.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In regard to that matter I only want to say, in respect of the speech delivered a moment before by the hon. Gentleman sitting just behind the right hon. Gentleman, that I agree with him that any attempt to bring political pressure to bear in order to improve or to enhance the salary or wages of employés of the State should be very carefully scrutinised. I confess I think the House has sometimes been unduly influenced by such pressure. I think the danger is greater when you, are dealing with classes which are very

    2245
    numerous. I have more than once pressed upon the House the desirability of trying to find some way which would remove these questions from the immediate purview of the House of Commons. The means that we have hitherto adopted have been to refer the Post Office and similar questions relating to Post Office employés to a Committee upstairs. I have always felt that that was highly unsatisfactory. I do not think it is a good tribunal to try the issues involved; that it was bound to produce in the minds of smaller sections of Civil servants, owning a much more limited number of votes, the feeling that the House only took action when the votes were sufficiently numerous—in fact, to encourage the view which the hon. Member opposite wishes to discourage. If we wish to discourage that view it is necessary for Governments to be alert and ready to listen to real grievances of the employés of the State, however small in number they may be. As to the class of men whom we have been considering today, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they originally entered the service by a back-door. They were the personal assistants of their immediate superiors. I think in this and in some other cases there has been a not unnatural desire on the part of the Treasury to keep them in that position as long as possible in order that the great army of Civil servants might not be further increased.
    When men are engaged in employment which is obviously valuable and confidential it is not in the interests of the State that they should come in and go out casually. It is to the interests of the State, as much as to the interest of the class concerned, that they should make the work their career, and should be encouraged to do so. I confess that I regret that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman has not acted at once without waiting for the Royal Commission. I can quite understand the case of boy labour, which, owing to the nature of the service, may require to be held over till the Report of that Commission appears; but I do not see where that applies to the question of the surveyors' clerks. I do think those men ought to be put upon the establishment. I certainly would not like to commit myself, and, indeed, I do not think I ever would commit myself, on any, ex parte statement, apart from such inquiry as I could make, to a statement as to the right amount of wages or salary that a particular class of employés of the State should be given. Therefore I do not
    2246
    commit myself to the acceptance of the particular terms which have been suggested as being proper remuneration for this class. I do think we might have now from the Government the recognition of the fact that it is in the public interest, and it is really due to these men, that they should he placed upon the establishment. I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not give us that assurance this afternoon. Feeling the way I did, I did not like to pass over the sentences with which the right hon. Gentleman began, and in which he seemed to link me ex officio, as a past Chancellor, with necessary opposition to every demand raised by Civil servants, and to this demand in particular.
    Captain SPENDER CLAY: I consider the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary extremely unsatisfactory. It was not a speech which I should have thought would satisfy hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House who have spoken strongly in favour of the claims of this unfortunate class, nor of those of our side of the House who have endorsed that appeal. He has said that he cannot possibly do anything now; that there is a Royal Commission sitting. I must say I am a little bit sceptical as to the Royal Commission. Royal Commissions sit for a very long time, and their Reports do not come out as speedily as we should like. The Report of this Commission may not, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, come out until March or July of next year. In the meantime what about those who are paid low wages, and the majority of whom are not on the establishment? According to the right hon. Gentleman, if this Royal Commission does not propose to give them better salaries, he will do something. I leave it to the Committee to say whether or not this is not a most unsatisfactory statement, and if my hon. Friend presses his Amendment to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby. Just think of the amount of salary these men get! I was astounded to hear it. Some of them only get £52 per year. These are men in a responsible position, dealing with forty millions of money annually, and some of them are paid a wage which is certainly not a living wage. Some are more fortunate than others, and have got upon the establishment. In 1908, when the new scheme came into force, it appears that a certain number of these men came on to the permanent staff. What is going to

    2247
    happen to the rest, large numbers of whom have got no provision made for Old age? I think, if you look at the case fairly, and from all points of view, and consider that you are dealing with Government officials, you must treat them all alike so far as you can. It is either fair or unfair to treat them as you are doing now. If it is unfair it is not a case that ought to wait for the report of the Royal Commission in a year or two's time. The matter should receive the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I did not say that the Report of the Royal Commission would be out in a year or two's time. I was speaking of what might definitely be done next year.
    Captain SPENDER CLAY: If I misapprehended the right hon. Gentleman I will willingly withdraw. What was said about 1914?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I said that in any case I hoped the Royal Commission would report before that.
    Captain SPENDER CLAY: Then it all depends upon the report of the Royal Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is really anxious to assist these most deserving people, but that he is not prepared to do it to-day? What we want him to say definitely is when he is going to do it: To what extent he will meet their demands. Although I should like willingly to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance I cannot help thinking that this is a case which has been going on for so many years, and that it perhaps may be forgotten in some of the large questions which arise in the years to come. The matter does involve, I admit, a sum of considerable magnitude—£56,000. I cannot help thinking unless something is done as soon as possible—that there may be a tendency on the part, I am sure not of the right hon. Gentleman himself, but perhaps the permanent officials, to try to save this £56,000. I know there is pressure put on every Member of Parliament in a case like this. I admit I have been approached on the subject, but it is a case that I have gone into with some considerable care, and which, owing to the magnitude of the sums involved, I think really requires the immediate attention of the right hon. Gentleman I cannot feel absolutely satisfied as to the way that this
    2248
    matter has been dealt with, and with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall, if necessary, support my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I venture to think that the statement of the Financial Secretary is an extremely unsatisfactory one. He admits the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. He admits that these grievances exist. He admits that this is a deserving class that up till now have not received justice. He admits that something ought to be done. What is his excuse for his inaction? He tells us that a Royal Commission is sitting. Apparently, until he was informed by my hon. Friend, he was not aware of the fact that the Royal Commission had really rendered it impossible that they could deal with this question, because when these men asked to be represented before that Royal Commission, so as to state their case, that request was refused. It is quite true that they got a memorandum or something of the kind handed in, but we all know that that is really worthless for the purpose of sifting a case of this sort. Therefore the Royal Commission have really rendered themselves disqualified to decide upon this case. They have refused to hear the evidence. The right hon. Gentleman attempts to shelter himself for his inaction by saying that the matter is sub judice. The answer to that is that the tribunal is not competent, as I have shown, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have some sort of belief that the Royal Commission is not a fit tribunal because he has given us an undertaking that whether or not the Royal Commission deals with the matter, he will himself deal with it next year. What I think the House is entitled to know is why the right hon. Gentleman does not deal with it this year. If he could do it next year without the Royal Commission, surely he could do it this year. This is a mere excuse for more delay, and is a very grave and unpardonable thing.
    Mr. GWYNNE: I regret that I cannot accept the very vague suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman as to his proposal to deal with this matter. and I therefore cannot withdraw my Amendment. I would remind him that the feeling of urgency in this matter is not confined merely to this side of the House because the hon. Member for Norwich opposite said at the conclusion of his

    2249
    remarks that the time had come when it is of the highest importance that the risk we are now running should be run no longer. For that reason I cannot accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I would remind him that we have had this afternoon a far better opportunity of discussing this matter, and considering it in its various aspects than even the Royal Commission.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): It seems to me there is some misunderstanding as to the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and I should be very sorry if it went out to the clerks. Those who interpreted my right hon. Friend's statement—I am sorry I did not hear it myself, but I know the details—seem to have come to the conclusion that he gave a purely vague promise which is generally associated with official undertakings, that the matter will be considered next year. That certainly is not the case. My right hon. Friend is very anxious and very properly so, to get the Report of the Royal Commission and see what they say about the surveyors.
    Mr. GWYNNE: The question of the surveyors is not referred to them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand the surveyors themselves presented a memorial to the Commission. Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that they would prefer to have the matter adjudicated on by the Treasury before the Royal Commission reported?
    Mr. GWYNNE: They asked to be heard and they were refused.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I call the hon. Gentleman's attention again to the paragraph in the evidence already referred to in the House, in which Sir Matthew Nathan said that he was considering their position with a view to making some arrangements. They seemed to prefer to have the matter adjudicated on by the Royal Commission. They presented their case, and presented it very fully, to the Royal Commission. It true, I believe, that no individual clerk has appeared to give evidence.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Nor surveyor.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am told the surveyors have presented their case.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Have they been heard? I say quite definitely that they applied but were refused by the Royal Commission.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to know whether, under these conditions, they prefer to have the matter adjudicated upon by the Treasury or wait to get the Report of the Royal Commission. I should think that they would be much better advised to hear what the Royal Commission had to say.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Without being heard?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have considered the memorial presented. We looked into that matter. I assume he has looked into the matter in order to assure himself upon the subject. I listened to the hon. Gentleman and to other speeches delivered in support of his view. I think, certainly, a very good case has been established. I think there is a good deal to be said for it, and that it is very desirable to employ men dealing with matters of an entirely confidential nature which affects the private affairs of hundreds of thousands of men in this country, so that these men should feel that security of tenure necessary to identify them with the public service and to give us the same sort of spirit as prevails in the Civil Service. I do not doubt that for a moment. I think the case the hon. Gentleman has put is irresistible. This is a more or less new policy of the Department to absorb as many as possible and to establish them for public reasons, and I confess I think there is a good deal to be said for carrying that policy further, but I should have thought, upon the view of the surveyors and clerks themselves, that it would be better that the Royal Commission should express an opinion on this and on the case of kindred employés, because they are not the only persons suffering this class of grievance. I think it would be better to hear what the Royal Commission says. I will guarantee, as my right hon. Friend has already done, that we will do justice to their claims, but when the hon. Gentleman said it is prejudice and when he produced a particular case of £50 a year, I do not know what that case is. It may be a boy of eighteen. I should rather like to know something more about the circumstances. If he asks me if that is a fair wage for a man, I say certainly it is not, but I should like to know something about the conditions. There is no worse tribunal in the world for fixing a scale of wages than the House of Commons; they cannot possibly do it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I never suggested that for a moment; and with regard to challenging the Royal Commission, what we

    2251
    said was that by refusing to take evidence, which is the only way any tribunal can judge, they disqualified themselvese from pronouncing upon this matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider the question of evidence; I think there is something to be said in that respect. I should like to know whether they had an opportunity of presenting their case fully before the Royal Commission. It seems to me that opportunity should be given. The Royal Commission are probably under the impression that it has been given. I am not judging or criticising the action of the Royal Commission, but I would point out that we cannot, in this House, fix a scale of wages and say that £50 is too little for someone over nineteen years of age, and that a certain figure is not a proper maximum. I agree it is very desirable in the public interest and in the interests of the revenue that we should have as many of these men as possible on the establishment, to give them a sense of security. I agree with what the hon. Member stated about the quality of these men. They give very good service, admirable service. What you ought to do, if you can, is to give them a sense of security which would attract the very best men to the service, especially if there was promotion which would go beyond the maximum indicated. I can assure the hon. Gentleman we are not merely giving a perfunctory promise in this respect. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can assure him I will keep in mind the case he has made out for the surveyors. At the present moment I could not improvise a scheme. I think that every reasonable man here who has got the interests of the clerks at heart will feel we have gone as far as we possibly can at the present moment in dealing with them.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-VANS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us fair words for the last ten minutes. He agrees that a case has been made out and that it ought to be dealt with, but when he comes to the stickling point when he might meet the case put forward, all he says is that the case is made out. He really does not advance upon the position taken up by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who says that the case is sub judice. The Chancellor says the case is made out, but you cannot expect me to improvise a scheme on the Treasury Bench; if he really means to deal with the
    2252
    case, he could give a definite undertaking that it should be dealt with on the lines of the proposal well known to the Treasury for years. This matter has not been sprung upon them at the last moment. The Treasury are now taking up exactly the same line as they did all through. In 1908, in 1910, in 1911, it was brought before them, arid from the evidence of Sir Matthew Nathan given before the Royal Commission, the only reason he did not press the scheme upon the Treasury was that the Royal Commission might make some recommendation that boy clerks should no longer exist. The only reason why the Royal Commission was referred to at all was that some change might be made in the position of boy clerks. This is not a question of boy clerks, but of men clerks and also of the public interest.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Surely the whole position must be affected by the question whether boy clerks should be continued.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is quite possible, supposing the Royal Commission said that no more boys were to be employed, that 310 boys would have to be replaced by men clerks, but that does not alter the fact that there are 500 men clerks non-established working for wages which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits are inadequate. Their case has been urgently pressed for the last two or three years. I do not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say we will accept exactly your proposal, but I expect, if he is serious, he will give a definite undertaking that within quite a short time the Treasury will take this matter into its consideration with a view to establishing men clerks and putting their salaries upon a proper basis. For my part I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see what the opinion of the House is on this matter. It is not sufficiently expressed because a, few Members only have joined in this Debate. Let him see the feeling of the House and let him understand that the House has made up its mind that this class of Civil servants, both for their own sake and for the sake of the State, should be put upon an establishment basis and paid a living wage.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: I would like to ask if what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said applies to surveyors' clerks in Scotland as well as in England?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, it does. I understood the hon. Member for

    2253
    Colchester to say that we had not promised anything. If he will refer to the evidence of Sir Matthew Nathan, I think he will find that his statement is inaccurate, for he said:—
    "The surveyors' clerks petitioned some time ago for a reconsideration of their position, and the surveyors complained that they had not the assistance they thought they ought to have, as these clerks were not properly qualified. I considered the matter, and appointed a small Committee to investigate it, consisting of the Deputy-Chairman, the Secretary of Taxes, and the Chief Inspector of Taxes, and they have recently sent me a report which I have under consideration, proposing a considerable alteration in the whole conditions of the service of the clerks to the surveyors based, more or less, on the lines suggested, which will stop any blind alley for boys."
    That is one of the things which came up for consideration.
    Mr WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want
    to correct the Chancellor of the Exchequer on one point. I quite agree with the statement he has just made, but I said the only reason given by Sir Matthew Nathan for not having pressed this matter on the Treasury with reference to the Royal Commission, was that he did not know whether they were going to advise supercession of the boy clerks altogether.
    Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 267.

    Division No. 172.]

    AYES

    [6.18 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Anstruther-Gray. Major William

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fleming, Valentine

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Forster, Henry William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gastreil, Major W. Houghton

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mills, Hon. Charlea Thomas

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (GIMIC, E.)

    Gordon, Hon1. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gouldlng, Edward Alfred

    Mount, William Arthur

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Grant, James Augustus

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gretton, John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Peterstield)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

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

    Nield, Herbert

    Blair, Reginald

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hall, D. B. (Isleof Wight)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Boyton, James

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Butcher, John George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Peto, Basil Edward

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

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

    pretyman, Ernest George

    Campion, W. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildrad

    Hibbcrt, Sir Henry F.

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwird H.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Cator, John

    Hills, John Waller

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cautley, Henry Strothor

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

    Cave. George

    Hohler, G. F.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cecil. Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Home, Edgar (Surrey (Guildford)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    Hume-Williams, Ellis

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stanier, Seville

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Knight, Captain Eric AysMord

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Eyres-Monseil, Bolton M.

    Locker-Lamoson, O. (Ramsey)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Valentia, Viscount

    Willoughby. Major Hon. Ciaud

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Walker, Col. William Hall

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

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Winterton, Earl

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Weigail, Captain A. G.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Rupert Gwynne and Mr. Worthington-Evans.

    Weston. Colonel J. W.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Wheler, Granvllie C. H.

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

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

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lynch, A. A.

    Adamson, William

    Falconer, James

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McGhee, Richard

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Ffrench, Peter

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

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

    Field, William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Arnold, Sydney

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Calium, Sir John M.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spadling)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Ginneil, Laurence

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Manfield, Harry

    Barnes, George N.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Barton, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meagher, Michael

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Greig, Colonel James William

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

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

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Gwynn, Steohen Lucius (Galway)

    Molloy, Michael

    Betheil, Sir John Henry

    Hackett, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Birreil, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hancock, John George

    Mooney, John J.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Boland, John Plus

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cieophas

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Muldoon, John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, Robert

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hayward, Evan

    Neilson, Francis

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

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

    Nuttail, Harry

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Higham. John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allan

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Clough, William

    Hogg, David C.

    O'Dowd, John

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Compton-Rickett. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shee, James John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hudson, Walter

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Crooks, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cullinan, John

    John, Edward Thomas

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

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

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Philips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Joyce, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Delany, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Radford, George Heynes

    Dillon, John

    King, Joseph

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Doris, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Reddy, Michael

    Duffy, William J.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexlord, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Lyeil, Charles Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    2256

    2257

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Webb. H.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeaton)

    Rowlands, James

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Thomas, J. H.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wiles, Thomas

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Scott, A. MacCalium (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Sheehy, David

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Walton, Sir Joseph

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

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Wardle, G. J.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Waring, Walter

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Snowden, Philip

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. PRETYMAN: I take this opportunity of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few questions in regard to his intentions on the work of valuation, and also as to some proceedings of the Valuation Department. The first question is: What does he now propose to do in regard to the valuations of agricultural land? We had a Debate which covered a certain amount of that ground, and I would like to remind the Committee that one important point raised was, whether tenant right should be included in the valuation or not. I read to the House several instances from the Valuation Department, in which they refused to state whether tenant right was included in their valuation of agricultural land or was not included. Since then a test case known as the Norton-Malreward case has been heard before a Referee, and in giving evidence before the Referee the Valuation Department finally came down on one side of the fence and stated in so many words that they had not included tenant right in their valuation. The Referee has now given his decision upon that point and he has decided that tenant right is included in the total value and the gross value. My right hon. Friend says "ought to be so," but that is rather a difficult point, because a figure is given which nominally represents the land, but that figure is capable of almost indefinite expansion or contraction, after argument as between one side and the other, and after a hearing before a Referee. The Referee has decided that whatever the figure may be, it roust be taken to include tenant right. When the matter was being debated, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Masterman) said:—
    "The question [of tenant right] iv sub judice, and it would have been quite impossible under those conditions for the Inland Revenue, who have got to present their cage before a judicial tribunal, to allow correspondents to write to them to find out upon what basis they interpret the Act."
    2258
    A more misleading statement than that, or a more uncandid statement than that could hardly be conceived. Surely if the Valuation Department were going to state before the Referee that they had not included tenant right, there could have been no possible objection to their informing their correspondents that they had not included tenant right when they were asked. Why should they not have said so? It passes my comprehension. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury went on to say:—
    "I am told that quite early next mouth we are likely to have an authoritative decision on butt, subjects [that is, the two questions of tenant right), and by that decision, of course, the Inland Revenue will be bound."—[0FFICIAL REPORT. 29th April, 1919. col. 1038, Vol. LII.]
    That was the decision which has just been given, and therefore, on the definite statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Government now are bound by the decision which has been given that tenant right is included. During one of the Debates this Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that some 3,000,000 valuations have been completed, and included in them, no doubt, is a very large number of valuations of agricultural land, We now know that in all those cases tenant right is to be considered as included, but the Valuation Department state that tenant right is not included. Therefore, all those valuations will require to be made again. The valuations which are now being made will, I presume, all be on the new basis that tenant right is included. May I also point out that now tenant right is included it is a very extraordinary proceeding that these valuations are being used as the basis for Death Duty. You are charging the owner Death Duty not only on his own property, but on the property of his tenant as well. Not only wilt all those agricultural valuations apparently have to be remade, but all the Death Duty

    2259
    claims which have been made on that basis will have to be reopened.
    A further definite point of importance which arose on that decision was whether grass land is to be treated as divested' of the grass in arriving at the site value of the land. The Valuation Department have contended that grass is not to be divested and that the site value of grass land is to be the value of the land with the grass upon it. All the agricultural valuations have been made on that basis. The Referee has now decided that the grass is to be divested, and, therefore, the Valuation Department, to arrive at the site value of all the grass land, has got to value it as though there were no grass upon it. Consequently, on that most important item all the valuations will have to be revised and All the new valuations will have to be made upon the basis of the land having no grass upon it. Beyond that a very strong light has been thrown upon the reliability of these valuations. Here we have an important test case taken to decide whether the valuations of agricultural land being made by the Valuation Department are reliable, not only in regard to such items as I have mentioned, but also in regard to the general accuracy of the figures. We have a case in which the Valuation Department fix the gross value of a particular farm at £12.792; after conference with, and after objection by, the owner they altered their valuation to £12,741, reducing it by £50. The Referee has decided that the gross value of that farm is £11,935. In other words, the Valuation Department were £857 out in their valuation of the gross value of that farm. Then the Government valuers fixed the full site value at £9,000. They altered it, on objection, to £7,650, and the Referee has now fixed it at £4,625. In other words, the full site value has been altered by the Referee no less than £4,375, or something like 50 per cent. of the value which had been put upon it by the Valuation Department. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate (Mr. Tire) sitting there, because he and his Friends have been stumping the country telling everybody that the full site value is to be the basis of future taxation.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)indicated dissent.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman point to anybody who has ever said so?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood).
    Mr. PRINGLE: No, he has never said it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Oh, yes, he has; he said it in this House the other day.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have seen it in a document issued by the Committee for the Taxation of Land Values. There is nothing hon. Members opposite are so ready to do as to alter their proposals and to shift their ground as soon as it is shown that their position is untenable. My hon. Friend reminds me that I have very much understated the case. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House of the persuasion to which I have referred have actually brought in a Bill which is now before the House to rate the full site value. Is any further proof required than that? Here we have hon. Members suggesting the full site value as the basis of rating, and in a test case as to whether the full site value is reliable or not the Referee has decided that it is something like 50 per cent. out. That is the basis of valuation upon which people are to be taxed! The deductions from the total value allowed by the valuers were increased by the Referee by £3,884, and the assessable site value, being the basis on which the present taxes are collected when they come to affect the land, has been lowered by no less a sum than £4,765. It is quite obvious that in this case, which has been brought definitely to the test of the judgment of a Referee, there is a very large difference of opinion between the Valuation Department and the Referee himself. This is not an isolated case. I am making this case prominent simply because it is a test case brought before the Referee, and the figures are official and recent, and they will carry weight and conviction. There are a great many other figures which I should like to quote. The right hon. Gentleman has frequently said that we do nothing but bring forward the same cases. We have sometimes brought forward the same cases because we have never got an answer: We are told that they are going to be dealt with. They never are dealt with, and, when we bring them forward again, we are told that they are old cases When we bring forward new cases, we are told, "How can we answer cases of which we have had no previous information?"
    These figures can be vouched for as reliable. In the case of one property the total value was fixed by the provisional valuation at £15,433. Finally, the valuation was fixed at £12,679. The total value

    2261
    of another property was fixed at £15,464, and finally, after objection, at £7,730. In another case the total value was raised from £8,597 to £9,961. I have got a whole row of them here, all of a similar character. There is one case where the total value was lowered from £4,960 to £3,882, and another case, a rather-interesting one, where £400 was the price fixed and the price realised by auction was £630. Another property was fixed at £15,850. It was put up to auction with a reserve price of £9,750 put upon it, and no bidder was found. The property was withdrawn unsold. Here is property now standing with a value put upon it by the Valuation Department of £15,850 and nobddy can be found to give the price of £9,750 at public auction. What can be the object of continuing to make valuations upon this basis? We know that these valuations had, up to the end of the last financial year, cost £1,393,000, and that the Land Taxes based upon those valuations had produced £223,000. The only justification for that is the Doomsday Book, and the great uniform valuation which is thus being elaborated. Here we have facts and figures to prove that this valuation is not worth the paper upon which it is being written. The right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have admitted that these valuations must be brought in accordance with the decisions of the Referee as to the basis upon which they are to be made. Remember the provisions of this extraordinary law. However inaccurate a valuation may prove to be, by the mere lapse of sixty days after it has been served it, becomes statutory and fixed and cannot be altered except by the action of this House, or within certain limitations by the Valuation Department.
    Here you have some millions of valuations which are fixed and statutory on a basis which is now shown to be contrary to the Statute. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to do? Is he going to have half the valuations on the one basis, and half on another basis? Is he going to reopen all the valuations which he has already made, and how long is he going on making valuations before the basis has been properly fixed and ascertained? This is only one test case out of many which are under consideration, and until these test cases are decided and have been carried to the High Court, it is perfectly clear you have no definite basis of valua-
    2262
    tion on which you can proceed at all. You are wasting public money and putting private individuals to endless expense, trouble, and difficulty in carrying out a valuation the whole object of which is merely to fulfil, on paper, an undertaking which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to some of his followers that this valuation, good, bad, or indifferent, is to be completed by some date in 1915. The method which has been followed has had a little light thrown on it by a letter sent to me from one of the Welsh newspapers. It is signed "Valuation Assistant," but it bears every impress of being genuine. I only read it for what it is worth. It is not signed by name, but it has every impress of truth as far as one can judge. It is a letter written by a district valuer to complain of the treatment that district valuers are receiving in the matter of pay.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: From what paper is it?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The "Western Mail," Cardiff; and it throws a little daylight into the way in which valuations are made. The writer says:—
    "The district to which I am attached has several sub-divisions, each sub-division having a valuer, and each valuer having two valuation assistants. The idea is to finish the valuation by 1915. The heriditaments in each sub-district are worked out so that 2 per cent. of them are done each month. For example, say, 400 heriditaments is the required amount of work for a subdistrict per month. My colleague and myself are required each to make 2011 inspections, enter them up in a field book, then work out the provisional valuation for each hereditament. so that the provisional valuation can be served, the valuer in charge of the sub-district not seeing anything of them. They are, on the last day of the month, sent down to the district valuer who signs them, and, as he may have anything from 1,500 to 2,500 to sign. it is quite impossible for him to be acquainted with the figures"
    This gentleman began by saying that he is not a valuer and has never had any training as a valuer. He continues:—
    "Is it any wonder the public conic into the valuation offices and wish the Chancellor in a hot place when valuations are rushed out like this? It is a case of turning them out, no matter how."
    This is a, description given by a valuation assistant of the methods in which this valuation is being conducted. When that is put together with the figures which I have quoted it throws a very curious light on the value of the figures. There are still more serious matters than that. That is a waste of public money as well as a considerable injury to the individual. But there is another point. There are an immense number of small property owners whose property is mortgaged and it is a

    2263
    practice apparently of the Valuation Department—I am going to read letters to show what has been done—to value these properties—in many cases to under-value them, and, at any rate, to value them at a figure very much less than they cost the owner, and very much less than he. has been able to borrow on them, and they are actually sending the figures of the valuation to the mortgagee before they are sent to the owner. It is a most serious matter. I will read the letters:—
    "15, Grey Street. Newcastle-on-Tyne,
    2nd July, 1913.
    Dear Sir,—During the last few months the district valuers have been very active in this district, and on every side we find the mortgagees are being scared by the low valuation. As evidence of this we have sent you herewith copies of two letters which we have this morning received from a mortgagee's solicitors. We consider it a great injustice to owners that mortgagees should obtain knowledge of valuation before the mortgagor lets had an opportunity of having the same amended. In these cases the mortgagor has not yet received the provisional valuation.
    Yours faithfully,
    LUNDI, SHORTT, AND FENWICKE"
    These are the letters which were inclosed and which were received by the owners of the property from the mortgagee:—
    "Victoria Buildings. Grainger Street,
    Neweastle-on-Tyne, 1st July 1913.
    Miss Common to Thompson.
    Dear Sirs.—I have to-day received provisional valuation of this security, which works out at £425, and the mortgage upon it is £350. Under these circumstances I must request that the mortgage he reduced by £65. If this cannot be done at once I will have notice pre-pared and served upon the property.
    The property is 1. Jane Street and 110-112, Headlam Street.
    Yours faithfully,
    W. R. Guises."
    The second letter is as follows:—
    "Common to Gibson.
    114–146 and 118–120. Headlam Street.
    I have got the provisional valuation of 118–120. Headlam Street. which is £1,275. and if the house is put at the same figure it makes the two houses as worth £550 and the mortgage is £500. You ought to know by this whether Miss Common can repay £100. If she cannot then I must, take action.
    Yours faithfully.
    W. R. GIBSON."
    Here you have a Department which is supposed to be benefiting the country. We had the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the National Liberal Club the other afternoon claiming that he is one of those who have done something "to lift the poor out of the mire and the needy off the dunghill." But he is putting a great many of the poor into the mire by the method in which these valuations are being dealt with. I say that a more grievous injury could not be done to the thrifty poor, who have put their savings into house property in this country, and who, in nearly every case, having borrowed money, have
    2264
    put the savings and borrowed money together, and are living on the rent of the property without having any means of. repaying the money borrowed. You send this so-called valuation to the mortgagee. You send a figure arrived at in the slipshod fashion to which I have referred, a figure which may be very far from the value of the property, winch may probably, after consideration by the Referee, be either doubled or halved, as the case way be, and this figure, therefore, has no, authority whatever. The valuation is frequently made by a person who is not a valuer; it is not even seen by the district valuer himself at all. It is a mere casual figure turned out. at so many peer month and representing a percentage of the whole work which has to be done, in order. that the right hon. Gentleman's supporters may be satisfied that they have seine. kind of Domesday Book in 1915. For that purpose these figures are being' sent to the mortgagees, and these unfortunate thrifty people are being ruined. Their property is being forced into the market and the whole of their savings are lost. Remember the Lindsell case! Yes, and there sits the Secretary to the Treasury smiling. It may be a pleasure to hint to hear about it, but it is not a pleasure to us to know what is going on. Look at what happened in that case. Here was a road sweeper employed by the London County Council at 25s. a week. He put his whole savings of £50 into house property, borrowing the rest of the money. The property was sold for just enough to cover the mortgage. The man lost the whole of his £50 through the depreciation of the property for the reasons I have given, and then, adding insult to injury, the Department made a claim on him for £4 15s. for increment value! That is pulling the poor out of the mire.
    Let me turn from tragedy to comedy. The Valuation Department have many spheres of interest. It is not very long since that the House was moved to ridicule, and the Valuation Department were induced to alter the whole of their methods when it was discovered that their officials were marching about the country counting the number of trees in the hedgerows. That has been stopped. But now they are counting the bodies in the churchyards, an equally unnecessary proceeding. I hold here in my hand an original document, a document which is being served no doubt on the incumbents of various churches and benefices throughout the

    2265
    country. Here it is. Here is the form which is sent to the vicar of the parish called Meltham, near Huddersfield, and these are the questions this gentleman is asked to answer. This, be it remembered, is a valuation form. He is asked to state the date when the church was erected and the cost of the same. It was erected in 1651, and so far the cost has not yet been ascertained. Then he is asked the date and description of each subsequent addition with the cost. Next, for how much the buildings are insured against fire. Is the stained glass insured separately, and, if so, for what amount? Next the seating accommodation for the congregation (a) on the floor, and (b) in the galleries. The sixth question is as to the seating accommodation for the choir. The seventh asked the cost of the organ and the name of the maker. The eighth the number, weight, and cost of the bells. Then there are questions as to ground rents, plan showing the boundary, the cost of the erection of Sunday-school premises or any additional class-rooms. The twelfth question had reference to seating accommodation in the Sunday school. The thirteenth asks the amount for which the schools are insured against fire, and the fourteenth asks as to the number of bodies interred in the graveyard after the 30th April, 1909. I do not know whether that is for unearned increment or manurial value. [Interruption.] What, is it for? It is an absurd waste of time. It is an absurd waste of time both of private individuals and of the Valuation Department. It is absurd that their time should be wasted in ascertaining details of that description, and I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will tell us with what object these questions were asked and what use is going to be made of them.
    We have had some very extraordinary instances as to what land includes. I do not know whether it includes church bells or organs or sittings in the church. I need not enlarge upon that. It is perfectly obvious to the House and the country that it must be a ludicrous waste of time. It is not what the House of Commons intended in connection with land valuation. It was not intended that this kind of procedure should be followed. I do not want to 'delay the Committee, but I do want to ask one more question, a question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger). He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the
    2266
    day before yesterday whether in the minus valuation case, which was recently decided in favour of the Crown in the House of Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to defray the cost of the applicant?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the hon. Gentleman let me have the paper of questions which he has just quoted?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: You will give it me back?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: As I was saying, my hon. Friend asked whether the Treasury were prepared to pay the costs in the minus valuation case recently heard in the House of Lords, and the right hon. Gentleman gave a negative reply. That raises a rather important issue. I think the Committee are thoroughly aware, whatever their opinions may be of the rights or wrongs of the matter, that the Act is a very difficult one to construe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has admitted that many times, and he has expressed a desire to obtain a settlement of doubtful and difficult points by the Courts which have to decide the matter. The responsibility rests upon the House of Commons, because if the House of Commons passes an Act of Parliament which is so clear that everybody can understand it and anybody chooses to wilfully is understand it and goes in for litigation, he must naturally pay the costs, but if the House of Commons passes legislation imposing taxes upon the subject and the Statute is so worded that it is absolutely impossible to interpret or define it without constant recourse to the Courts, it is the duty of the House of Commons to pay the costs of both sides in genuine test cases which are taken to decide the points of difficulty in the inter- pretation of the Act. That this minus value case is such a case is proved by the fact that the decision of the Scottish Court before whom the case was heard was unanimous in favour of the appellants. The case was then taken to the House of Lords by the Crown; and the decision was reversed. It was a test case, which has been discussed here several times, and one which covered many hundred thousands of valuations, upon which the construction of the Act depended, and it was obviously a case which the Treasury were bound to have settled before they could properly

    2267
    administer the Act. I do not suggest that every case which involves an interpretation of this Act should necessarily be paid for by the Treasury, but where a case is clearly a test case, involving issues governing thousands of other cases, such as the case deciding how agricultural land was to be valued, which was a case of the utmost general importance, I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave not a pledge or an undertaking, but that when the matter was discussed once or twice in previous Debates the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly led us to understand that he considered it a fair and reasonable request that genuine test cases should be paid for by the Crown. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state his views upon that subject and give an undertaking upon it.
    The only other point to which I wish to refer is the very serious delay which is now taking place in the decision of some of these cases. For instance, there is the Deptford case, which has been mentioned here two or three times, which was taken to decide whether the land given up for roads is to be a deduction or not when the values are being ascertained. There is the case of Whitbourne v. The Commissioners. That was heard by the Referee in 1912, and he gave his award on 13th May, 1912, in favour of the appellant, and against the Valuation Department. Here we are in July, 1913, and the case has not yet been heard. The Valuation Department, so far from carrying out the pledges which have been given constantly in this House that the valuation shall be carried on in accordance with the law as interpreted by the Courts, are still refusing to make that deduction, and are still making valuations according to their own interpretation of the Act and contrary to the decision of the Referee. We have been waiting for a whole year for this case to be heard before the High Court. Then it has to go to appeal, and then, I presume, to the House of Lords. The endless vista of litigation and expense in interpreting this incomprehensible Act is nothing short of a scandal. I am obliged to repeat this over and over again, because every time it is repeated it gets wider and wider known in the country.
    I suggested the other day that when this Act was being advocated in theory it was mentioned on every Liberal platform. Now it is never mentioned. [Hon. MEM-
    2268
    DERS "Oh!"] Only in very vague terms The "glorious Budget," "the people's. Budget," is still referred to, but is passed away from as quickly as possible. There is no jubilation over the Land Taxes on Liberal platforms to-day. Nothing was. more instructive than the answer of the Liberal candidate at the Leicester election the other day when he was asked by the Land Union his views upon the Land Taxes and the policy of the Land Union. His reply was that he was naturally opposed to all unjust taxation, but that he could not accept the Land Union's own statement of its policy. That was rathera peculiar reply. He found that there were 3,000 small owners of property in Leicester and no duke, and that there were 3,000 small property owners who were suffering from the imposition of these taxes and all the consequences of them. I think they were really a serious factor in that election, and that he had to trim his sails accordingly. Now the boot is entirely on the other leg. Everybody who is a, victim, as these small owners were the victims of this form of taxation, is naturally an opponent of the right hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that this Act has only to be understood to be condemned, and the only refuge the Chancellor of the Exchequer has is obscurity. So long as he can keep these things out of sight, there is a certain number of people who will still believe in his statements which were made at the time this legislation was introduced. Nobody who has come into actual contact with it still believes those statements. I have told the House so many times, and I am afraid I shall have to continue to do so until this matter is settled one way or the other, and until we have either a proper valuation conducted upon a sound basis, in which the country may have confidence, or that the whole structure of the valuation for these taxes shall be repealed.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has, it is true, not for the first time, impugned this valuation. It is a great valuation, which involves millions of hereditaments throughout the whole of the Kingdom. He has been good enough to tell the House of Commons that it is not worth the paper upon which it is written. When a statement of that kind is made, impugning a gigantic valuation, you would expect at least some evidence corresponding to the sweeping character of the allegations made. What is his evidence? First, I think, he gave us five cases. In five cases

    2269
    he is able to prove that on an appeal the figures did not come out quite as the valuer made them out. What was the second piece of evidence? An anonymous letter, written by a disappointed assistant-valuer wilt was not satisfied with his wages, in a Tory paper in South Wales. Let us take those two things. The valuations up to date cover, I think, about 5,000,000 hereditaments. You cannot have a valuation of that character made, whether it is for local purposes or Imperial purposes, which would not be subject to appeals. You cannot have a valuation, whoever undertakes it, without having cases in which some of the appeals will not succeed. I invited the hon. Gentleman to give us any case in which there has been a great valuation in a Poor Law Union without an appeal. I asked him for one case. The hon. Gentleman interrupted me as if that were beneath contempt. In the case of Poor Law Union aluations the valuers were dealing with valuations upon principles which have been thought out for centuries.
    We have had Acts of Parliament after Acts of Parliament, decisions in the Courts and amendments of the law, yet, in spite of all that, if you had a valuation in a Poor Law Union to-morrow you would have no end of cases in which appeals would be made, and some which would be supported by the Courts and some of which would be upset. What does the hon. Gentleman say? Here is a valuation where you have 4,500,000 cases in which provisional valuations have been served. He impugns a new Act of Parliament, when there cannot have been many decisions of the Courts, and the only thing he is able to say to the Committee is that there are five or six cases where it has been proved that the valuations are inaccurate and that there is an anonymous letter in the "Western Mail." He says, "Does not that, prove it is not worth the paper upon which it is written"? Everybody who knows anything about the valuation knows that a more preposterous statement has never been made in the House of Commons, or even on the Land Union's platform. Why does not the hon. Gentleman take the facts in the aggregate, instead of merely saying there are a few cases you cannot substantiate. I have appealed more than once to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Younger), who does know something about valuations and has had great experience of them. He knows perfectly well that a valuation is very difficult to substantiate up to the last
    2270
    penny; that you can get two extraordinarily able men, thoroughly honest men, who will disagree as to the value of a particular property, and that when it comes to arbitration the referee disagrees with both. I am not sure that that is not always the case. It is very rarely the case that you get a referee who decides that the valuation is absolutely accurate to the last penny. What really happens is that he splits the difference. He leans more to one side than the other, and, as I shall point out, what the referees have done hr these cases has been to lean to the side of the official valuers rather than to the side of those who are appealing. We had 4,600,000 hereditaments valued up to 30th. May. The total appeals in those cases cases covered 6,272 hereditaments.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Were those valuations settled, or were they merely provisional?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Those are the provisional valuations made up to, 30th May. I am giving now the number of appeals which have been lodged. Up to 30th May there were 4,000,000 valuations, and only in 6,000 cases were appeals lodged.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: How many objections were there?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE:I am talking of appeals. That is what the hon. Gentleman was talking about. If appeals were good enough for him they are good enough for me. There have been 6,000 appeals out of 4,600,000 valuations. Those are the only cases in which there were appeals. Most of those appeals were settled between the parties. Where the appeals went to a hearing the valuers won most of them. As a matter of fact, there were very few cases. which went to a hearing, but the great majority of them were won by the valuers. Here is a valuation, which is the case not of a small man but of a big man, who had. thousands of hereditaments who could appeal, and who you would think would appeal if the case were as bad as the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be. What has happened? Just this very small infinitesimal proportion, one case out of 743, that is the only appeal which has been lodged, even against this valuation which is not worth the paper upon which it is written. I ask anyone who knows anything about local valuations whether he can point out a single great valuation that has gone through with as few appeals as

    2271
    you have in this case. The hon. Member gave another case. He said the tenant right case was a very good illustration of how very defective this valuation is, and he pointed out the difference between the award of the Referee and the provisional valuation. The provisional valuation was £12,741. The Referee's award was £11,935. The hon. Member might have also given what the owner stated was the valuation. That was £10,144, and although he said the official valuer was wrong according to the Referee to the extent of £800, I think in fairness to the House of Commons he ought to have stated that the valuation of the owner was wrong to the extent of about £1,800. So that the official Referee when he came to value it, in splitting the difference, leaned heavily to the side of the official valuation against the owner. I should have thought that as the hon. Member was talking about candour and frankness he might have stated that fact, which is not at all an unimportant one. The hon. Member said the full site value on the provisional valuation was £7,650.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No. £9,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: £7,650.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, that was the amended valuation. The provisional valuation was £9,000, it was amended on the owner's objection to £7,650, and then altered by the Referee to £4,625.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The final valuation which was fought by the Inland Revenue was £7,650. The hon. Member says the Referee's award was £4,625. What he did not say, and what I thought when he got up to interrupt, he was going to tell the House even now, is that the owner's valuation was £1,098. Why did he withhold that fact from the House of Commons? He charges the Inland Revenue officials with a lack of candour and openness. The way he is going to teach them how to do it is by withholding a most essential fact of that kind. Then he goes to the assessable site value. That was £7,000. He rather commented on the fact that my hon. Friend smiled at his speech. He seems very amused with the fact that he has withheld this very important piece of evidence from the House of Commons. I should not have thought it was a case for amusement. He said the Referee only gave £4,000, but what he did not tell the House of Commons was that the assessable site value, according to the
    2272
    owner, was £916. You never can get any valuation, whether it is for Poor Law purposes or Imperial purposes, or under the Land Clauses Act, where two sets of valuers will agree. I should have said if you had an arbitration of that kind and the official Referee had leaned as heavily to one side as he has done in this case it would prove at any rate that the official valuers were better than the valuers of the Land Union. The hon. Gentleman complained of undervaluation, and some time ago he said orders had been given for undervaluation.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not remember saying that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes. The hon. Gentleman said he did not complain of the Inland Revenue officials—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible. He is right. In a Parliamentary sense undoubtedly I am responsible, and I accept responsibility. That was a very serious charge. It has gone on for months and months, but no attempt has been made to substantiate it. I have repeatedly stated that I would set up a committee of experts for the purpose of examining the question whether there was an undervaluation or not. If instructions of that kind had been given, every instruction would have been examined, and every case would have been examined by experts, and yet this offer has never been taken up to this moment. That is why I say the Land Union trumps up these cases for Debate, but the moment you begin to examine them they vanish into mist. The hon. Gentleman has talked about Leicester. Leicester was one of the cases where we had charges of undervaluation. What has happened recently there? In some of these very cases the property has been sold, and so far from there being an undervaluation on our part it was discovered that the property was sold rather under the valuation of our surveyor. I have a list of the cases where we have been charged with undervaluation and with giving instructions to undervalue. The moment it comes to the test of the auction room it is found that on the whole we leaned to overvaluation rather than to under. Of course, there has been no withdrawal of the charge brought against the officials. One never expects it, for although these men are doing their duty under very difficult conditions, they are arraigned in this way and suggestions are made that they are deliberately carrying cut what is a fraud. Yet that charge is not substantiated and they just pass on

    2273
    to another. What really happens in those cases is that very often they pay for the property twice what it is worth. The hon. Gentleman quotes the case of Newcastle. He says the mortgagee, when he discovered the valuation, instantly called up his money. What does he suggest should be done in these cases? If you are going to have a valuation at all it must be an accurate valuation, relentlessly carried out, without any consideration of the effect it will have upon mortgagees or anyone else. You must find out what the real value is. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that whenever there is a mortgage these valuers should deliberately overvalue the property?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Really I must be allowed to protest against that. I said nothing of the kind. You have no right misrepresent what I said.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I listened to the hon. Gentleman without any interruption although I have heard little but misrepresentation from him, and I am demonstrating it. I am asking in a case of that kind what you would do?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I told you what I would do.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me finish my sentence. If you are going to say that the mere fact of the value of the property brings the mortgage down, is that a complaint against the valuation? If it is, it means that in a case of that kind, you ought, out of indulgence to the mortgagor, to overvalue the property so that the mortgagee should not call upon him. The valuation should be one which has reference to one thing only, and that is the opinion of the valuer as to what the worth of the property is. I have no doubt at all that there is property in the country on which mortgagees may possibly have advanced more than it is worth. I do not see really what complaint there is against the valuers in that respect. All I say is that here you have got an enormous valuation under a new Act and in spite of the fact that you have had it going on for years, the majority of the cases which have come to Court at present have been decided in favour of the valuer. The hon. Gentleman made a good deal out of the case of the tenant right. He said that case had gone against us, and, therefore, had vitiated all our agricultural valuations. But notice of appeal has been given. Until the decision is reversed, of course, it must be respected in this case, but it is a decision we cannot
    2274
    accept generally. I cannot argue it for the simple reason that it is subject to appeal. I remember the Minus Value Case. There a decision had been given against it by the Courts of first instance. We could not accept it. We thought the Courts were absolutely wrong, and we went up to the highest Court in the land, which decided unanimously in favour of the view taken by the valuers. Yet we had Debates in the House and ridicule was poured upon the valuation. It was not worth the paper it was written on. I have heard it said that this would involve tearing up hundreds of thousands of valuations and that we should have to begin afresh. They would not wait until the matter had been decided by the Court. The hon. Gentleman had very little to say about that to-day. Up to the present the appeals had gone in favour of the valuers. I am not going of prejudge the case by discussing it. It would not be fair. It is a point of law decided by a gentleman who is not a lawyer and we are entitled to get the interpretation of the Courts of Law upon a decision of that kind and we propose to do it. And then when the Courts of Law give their decision we shall act upon it. The hon. Gentleman spoke about minus valuations, and I think the hon. Baronet (Sir George Younger) wants to say something on that subject. If he likes, I will reply now. I think it would be rather a serious position for the Treasury to be in that whenever the Crown loses a case, it has got to pay the costs, and that whenever the Crown wins it has also to pay the costs. I do not think that the Crown should be put in a worse position than anybody else. In this case, as I understand it, the costs of the Crown were not paid by the defendant, and to that extent I would say that probably the Court took into account that there had been decisions of two Courts below in his favour.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: One Court.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, the decision of one Court. I have no doubt the Court took that into account, and, therefore, did not give costs against him. The only thing they said was, "You shall not have your costs." I think it is a very serious matter to ask that the Crown should pay the costs of the loser. The hon. Baronet may say that this is a test case. Well, every case decided in a Court of Law is in a sense a test case. Every case that constitutes a leading case,

    2275
    and which is quotable in subsequent cases, must necessarily be a test case, and if, in every case which is decided in favour of the Crown, the Treasury had to pay the costs of the losing litigant, that would establish a new precedent. I think that the hon. Baronet in asking that the House should say that these costs should be paid by the Treasury is not fair to the Crown. If we were to pay these costs, we would be giving an incentive to litigation, for a litigant would know that even if he lost in an action against the Crown, his costs would be paid.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this case, first of all, governs thousands of cases in Scotland in respect of feu rents; and, secondly. I think the Budget of 1909–10 is so difficult to understand that it was possible for some of the judges to go wholly wrong. Surely there are circumstances in this case which differentiate it from others.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When he gives a decision in favour of a litigant as against the Crown, are you to say that because a judge, who is an able judge, has his decision reversed, the Crown should pay the costs of the litigant? The hon. Baronet seems to argue that if the decision in the first instance is given by an incompetent judge, the litigant must not pay costs when the decision is reversed. That would add something to the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I would not he competent to discharge. I do not think it is possible for us to take that line. The hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division wound up his speech by a statement he has made many times before in regard to the action of officials. I have not seen the official concerned in this case, and I do not want to go into a statement which affects the conduct of an official until I have information on the subject. I think the House will feel that I am justified in taking up that attitude. I see that he has sent out a document. but I cannot say why, and I do not wish to say anything which would appear to reflect on his conduct until I hear further about the matter. There are no instructions from Somerset House which would, in the slightest degree, cover that. The hon. Gentleman made a statement he has made many times before, that the country would settle this valuation and sweep it on one side with all the legislation that has taken place.
    2276
    He made that statement before the election of 1910, but he did not come off then as he expected. I think he will find that events have not altogether justified his anticipations as, a prophet. I have heard of ships being lured by melody on to the rocks. The hon. Gentleman, by his song, has lured his party on to the rocks. You may be lured on to the rocks by nagging and whining. Even his own party are a little unhappy about it. Why he should have referred to the Leicester election I cannot say. He evidently thought it was a great triumph for the Land Union. I hope they will win many triumphs of that kind in the course of the next few years. I have here an article written by a very able Conservative writer, containing what is rather a complaint about the hon. Gentleman and his Land Duties agitation. He is discussing the prospects of the Conservative party, and in the article he refers to the petulance with which the agitation has been pursued. He says:—
    "The Unionist party wants a rousing shake up. Some of its veterans might well retire and give up their seats to younger men of ability and brains, if such be known at headquarters. The temptation, no doubt, is great to choose the candidate. whatever his ability, who has wealth or territorial influence—and probably there are come seats which no other candidate could hope to retain—hut the temptation must he resisted if the party is to hold its own in the Commons. It is not less important that there should he a shake out from the party of such equivocal organisations as the Land Union."
    Mr. BUTCHER: Who is the author?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and learned Gentleman can ever write an
    article so brilliant as this one—[Interruption].
    Mr. BUTCHER: Who wrote that non-sense?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Britten."]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me finish the quotation:—
    An organisation like that which masquerades as non-political, though it monopolises all the energies of Mr. Pretyman, is scarcely compatible with the Unionist appeal to the democracy for democratic support."
    MEMBERS: "Name."]I am told he is a Conservative candidate at the present moment. [An HON. MENIBER: "Name."] If the hon. Gentleman will only inquire of the editor of the "Fortnightly Review," I have no doubt he will find out the name. What really matters in this case is that the article represents the true feeling of the party opposite, and none know better than those who have suffered on the other side of the House from the pertinacity with which the hon. Gentleman insists, in spite of every warning, in pressing these whimpers to the front as if he spoke for

    2277
    his party. I can assure him that the more he does it the better we will be pleased. We are proceeding with the valuation, and we shall carry it through. I venture to say that when it has been done it will be in itself an achievement which even the Conservative party will be delighted to use for the purpose of reforming local taxation in this country.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: It is difficult to follow or to understand what the quotation read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the "Fortnightly Review" has to do with the extremely important question we are discussing as regards valution under the Finance Act. I know that in his calmer moments he will admit that the discussion of valuation is not much assisted by the reading of such an article as he quoted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of answering the powerful attack made by my hon. Friend has not only not dealt with any of the serious statements which were made, but has attempted to turn attention in other directions, suggesting allegations which have never been made at all. It would be impertinent on my part in this House to say that no one would accuse the hon. Member on matters of this kind of merely stating half the truth. Before I come to the question of valuation, let us see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says of an allegation of that kind. I understand he based his reply on two propositions. First of all, he complained that in the figures given by my hon. Friend contrasted the opinions of experts on the two sides, while the owner's own valuation had been omitted. The right hon. Gentleman referred to me as one who was acquainted with the matter. Suppose you were dealing with any matter of valuation, the contrast you would make would be as between the opinions of experts, and you would not take into consideration the valuation of the owner, who might have no experience at all in the matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to the hon. Member with regard to mortgages. The hon. Gentleman never suggested for a moment that you had nothing to do with the valuation of the property as such. What he did say was this, and I do not think any answer was given to it: Is it not unfair to communicate the results of these valuations to the mortgagee before you have communicated them to the mortgagor? Why does he say that? He says that the effect of communicating to the mortgages
    2278
    in the first instance may have the effect of a demand for repayment being made which in the case of a poor man it might be difficult to deal with at short notice.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are communicated at the same time to the mortgagor and the mortgagee. It is fair that the mortgagee should get notice at the same time as the mortgagor.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That was my point, but I added that not only should the owner have an opportunity of seeing the valuation before the mortgagee, but he should have an opportunity of getting the valuation fixed at a proper figure before it is sent to the mortgagee at all.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I think I rightly represented what the hon. Gentleman said. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put aside the more heated elements of the discussion and conic back to the business side, he would appreciate perfectly well that it is a very hard thing in regard to the small property owner, if a poor man, that you should go to the mortgagee before the mortgagor, because it puts the mortgagor in the position of having immediate notice for the whole amount. You ought, if possible, to avoid putting an owner, particularly a poor owner, in a position of that kind. I hope I may have the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this, that if that has been done—and instances were given—he will express his disapproval of conduct of that kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the question of the number of appeals. That is no test whatever of the dissatisfaction entertained with regard to a large number of these valuations. I may give an illustration. I had a provisional valuation sent to me the other day of a small cottage property in Lincolnshire, the whole valuation being £30. I sent it back, because I was not consciously interested in any property in Lincolnshire at all. I found that mine was the first name in an ecclesiastical charity. If I had appealed in any way or attempted to ascertain Whether that £30 was accurate or not, it would have more than taken up the whole value of the charity. It is utterly impossible for poor men, to whom the greater number of these valuations apply, having regard to the value of the property concerned, to appeal without imminent risk of losing the whole corpus of the property which they enjoy at the present time. These test cases, though small in number, may apply to a very large number of properties.

    2279
    I agree that questions of valuation are difficult. Now you are valuing a very large number of agricultural properties. In the aggregate, I imagine that the number of agricultural properties is probably larger than any other class of property which is being valued under the Valuation Act, because the number of very small owners of agricultural land is very much larger than people generally imagine. This is a principle which goes to the basis of practically all the agricultural valuations in this country, and at the present time, as I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some millions of valuations are being made in the aggregate. He has told us four and a half millions, and I do not think it an exaggeration to say that there must be some millions made as regards agricultural property. The position is that every one of those valuations may be made on a wrong basis. Until this matter is decided we cannot say whether they are made on a wrong basis or not. Suppose that the valuation of the Referee is upheld when it goes up to the. House of Lords—though that is a very expensive matter unless the case is really a test case—what is to happen to these millions of valuation which have been made altogether on a wrong principle? The vice is this. You ought to have pushed on much earlier these test cases and to have had a decision before putting owners and others to the expense of a valuation which may turn out to be wholly inefficient and wholly on a wrong basis. The expense is very large indeed. The first thing which ought to have been done, if this valuation was to be of any permanent use, was to have all these fundamental matters definitely ascertained by the highest Court of Appeal, to have held your hand as regards the expensive valuations until the principles had been laid down, and then have made the valuations on proper principles which might have been, within the limitations I have indicated, of value for subsequent use, either as regards revenue or taxation purposes. But it is exactly the contrary. Not only is it no use, but it is utterly misleading if it is based on a wrong principle, if, instead of including the right elements, you exclude those which ought to be included and include those which ought to be excluded.
    As regards the question of expense of test cases, of course the Crown ought not in ordinary cases to be put in a, worse position than any other litigant, but an
    2280
    ordinary litigant can never be put in the same position as the Crown is in when you have test cases which are not only govering the particular cases involved, but perhaps govern tens of thousands of others in reference to all of which there is an important matter of principle to be decided. In such a case it is fair, where you have an Act of Parliament which is difficult to, interpret, that the expense which the owner has been put to in order to bring a test case and get a proper decision should he borne by the Crown, and that no exceptional expense should be thrown on him. owing to the difficulty of interpreting an Act of this kind. It is to the interest of everyone, the Crown and the public alike, that these test cases should be settled, and. as far as possible they ought to be settled at the public expense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to me from my knowledge of valuation as to the difficulties of ascertaining an accurate valuation even on what we know as the rating, basis. I entirely agree with him, but I think that that statement undermines the whole value of the valuation which is. purporting to be made at the present time under the Finance Act. In rating cases you have a basis which has been ascertained for I might almost say centuries in this country, namely, the rental basis, and the rental basis is the easiest basis on which you can truly ascertain the value of property. You have very often got a fixed sum to go by and when you have not you have got the market test. You cannot have an easier method of valuation than when you have a rental test or a market test. These valuations are carried. out by skilled valuators, who in most cases give up their time to this business and no other. In the result the right hon. Gentleman said—and I entirely agree—that even taking that. easy method of valuation, and applying principles with which they are fully conversant as their particular business, whenever you have a revaluation for rating probably you have large differences of opinion and you have often difficult litigation before the matters are finally cleared up.
    In the valuation under the Finance Act here you do not have an easy method of valuation. You have not a valuation in reference to market value or based on business ideas at all. You have a large number of purely hypothetical valuations invented for the purpose of the Finance Act and not based upon business at all. You cannot, have valuations more difficult.

    2281
    than such valuations and if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, even on the rating basis where you revalue you have this constant difference of opinion and this costly inquiry, what have you to say of valuations not conducted under the same conditions as regards expert opinion—because there are no experts as regards these Finance Act valuations as there are in reference to rating valuations—and also a valuation which deals with all these hypothetical positions which in ordinary life we do not come across at all? The veal answer is that these valuations are worth little or nothing. Everyone has had experience as regards valuations of their own property or any other valuations which have been brought to their notice, but no one can say that a valuation made under these conditions by the valuation staff, who have not the same knowledge as the experts have in these rating cases, can ever be of effective value if you are to use the basis so ascertained other for general rating or general taxation purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has often referred to this as a Domesday Book, as though he were obtaining a valuation which might be useful for future reference. I am perfectly certain from his own business knowledge, putting the political aspect on one side, that he cannot and does not believe that he can possibly get sufficient accuracy under the valuation system now being carried out in order to establish a firm basis from which to start either for taxation or rating.
    If that is so, when we consider how enormous the expense is in reference to the advantages obtained, if that valuation is to be of future use, you cannot find any use for an enormous expenditure of that kind. We must also consider that before the valuation is finished many of these valuations will be years old. What is the good of a valuation years old, either in a town where you have expansion and increment—because in my view you may have increment, I am not discussing that at present—or where you have decadence and you have a considerable decrease? The fact is that if you want to have accurate valuations, they have got to be accurately ascertained on a proper basis, as and when you want to use them. I cannot believe that there is anything important in the mere number of appeals, but I do suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if you take the test cases and try to see the value of these valuations by rating valuations, you can only come to one con-
    2282
    clusion, that the valuation of land is a lengthy and difficult matter, that an accurate valuation can never be attained under the Finance Act, and that these valuations will be really of no value for a subsequent taxation or subsequent rating basis.
    8.0 P. M.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, dealing with the difficulties of the valuation and the mistakes made under it, that a rental basis was the easiest basis on whirl: to find the value of property. It is an impossible basis in this country on which to fix the value of land, because in the first place, the Land Union tells us that there are within the urban districts of this country 4,000,000 acres of land, and only 500,000 acres of that land are built upon. That is, there are 3,500,000 acres within those urban districts which are not built upon, but which have a building value of, perhaps, thousands of pounds per acre. It may not be rented at all; it may be vacant land, no rent being paid for it. How is the valuer going to fix the value of that land by rent? It is equally impossible to fix the value of a great deal of rural land which is not let for the purpose of production, but which is largely used for sport. There, again, the rent gives no idea of the value. If this system of valuation were in force, and all the land were brought into its most profitable use, then no doubt rent would form a basis for fixing a value in the future. Our present land system makes valuation an undoubtedly difficult proceeding. I have long followed carefully the speeches made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and I know that throughout the length and breadth of the country he claimed to speak on behalf of the poor working men, of the poor road-sweeper, whose earnings were being swept away. On one occasion I was at a place on the sea coast, and I saw a great tract of country. I asked a friend who owned it, and he told me it belonged to Captain Pretyman, the Land Union disinterested orator, with a high standard of rectitude, under which we are told not to allow private interests to interfere with public interests. I was most surprised——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): We are dealing with the administration of valuation under the Finance Act, and that is the only question before this Committee. The hon. Member cannot go into the private affairs of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: It has been said by the hon. Gentleman that some of us on these benches were certainly satisfied with the present aluation, and that we were willing to take full site value as the basis for future rates. That is rather unfair, because he has had a great deal of support from us in urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rectification of the valuation. I understood from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are going to get a Revenue Bill which will satisfy that demand. Certain improvements are to be included in the valuation and certain defects excluded, and we will then have the true full site value. We are satisfied as regards the urban valuation that the full site value will be satisfactory for the finding of a new basis for our rating system. The valuation in the past has undoubtedly had many criticisms from those who are desirous of seeing a basis established for future rating. We have to acknowledge that at the beginning of a new system like this there must be difficulties, but I think that most of us are fully satisfied that the work is now progressing satisfactorily, and that with the rectification of the valuation we will get what we want, and perhaps what hon. Gentlemen opposite will be sorry to see.
    Mr. STANIER: The statement has been made that valuations are not worth the paper they are written on, and I only hope that the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) will get up in his place and acknowledge that sonic considerable time ago he stated that these valuations would not be, of any use for rating purposes. If that be so, I think we are justified in our statement that the valuations, to say nothing of the extraordinary cost, are really not worth the paper they are written upon. But I rose to ask whether it is really the fact, as we have heard this afternoon, that the valuers may send out papers containing a very large number of questions—questions that they evidently put of their own initiative, and without the sanction or knowledge of the authorities at Somerset House. I think it is a very serious state of affairs if that is so. How are those who receive those questions to know whether they have been sent out by a competent valuer or by one of his underlings, without the knowledge or sanction of Somerset House? I think before this Debate closes we ought to know if it is the case that these officials can send out these extraordinary ques-
    2284
    tions. I do not think that when the Finance Act was passed by this House it was contemplated that the valuers would send out questions of the character to which I refer. They are undoubtedly ridiculous questions, to say the least of it, and I am very desirous to know whether they have been sent out without the knowledge and consent of the higher officials at Somerset House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the course of this Debate must have proved itself very satisfactory to those who are responsible for the administration of the valuation under the Finance Act. If one analyses the speeches which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite one is driven to the conclusion that they have no case Whatever in regard to the administration of this valuation. They have had to make up a case for the purpose of this Debate by discussing questions which are altogether irrelevant to the matter immediately before the Committee. There is only one question, according to your ruling, Sir, which we can discuss on this Vote, and that is the administration of the valuation as it is at present being carried on. But in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) one found hardly any reference whatever to-the administration of the valuation. His whole speech was concerned with two totally different subjects—first of ally whether the valuation on the principles of the Finance Act was of any use at all, and, secondly, having got the valuation on the principles of the Finance Act, of what future use would it be in other legislation which may be in contemplation? It is quite true that the hon. and learned Gentleman made out a strong case against the valuation on both those grounds, fortified by the wide experience which he has had in these matters. But the mere fact, even if it were a fact, that the valuation which is being made is not on sound principles, and that it will be useless for the purpose of rating, would not of itself in the slightest degree affect the question of the action of the officials making the valuation; and if the case against those officials has to be buttressed up, as it has been buttressed up this afternoon, by the petty and trivial details brought forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman), then I think we can say that the Valuation Department stands acquitted of any serious charge.
    On former occasions when this subject was under discussion, it is true that the

    2285
    hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the valuation was being carried on by a number of incompetent officials, but practically no attempt was made by him this afternoon to make out any such case. Did he suggest that the officials who were carrying out the valuations are incompetent to discharge the duties laid upon them? Did he take cases of actual inaccuracy? He was unable to cite any. I would point out that there have been only 6,000 appeals in relation to valuation numbering about four and a half millions. When we remember the difficulty of the valuation, as has been conclusively shown by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks, surely we are entitled to say that, so far from the officials being incompetent, they have proved themselves by the satisfaction which their valuations have produced, admirably qualified for the difficult and delicate duties which they have been called upon to discharge. But we on this side of the House have no ground of complaint that lion. Gentlemen opposite bring forward this subject year after year. The more often they bring it forward the better it is for us. Indeed, the more irrelevant the speeches they make upon this question the better it is for us, because there is nothing which suits this side of the House better than that hon. Gentlemen opposite should familiarise the minds of the people of this country with the principles upon which the valuation under the Finance Act is based, and that they should familiarise the mind of the people of this country with the weaknesses in the valuation so that we may obtain an improvement of it for the purpose of further reforms in our rating system. We are satisfied that they should keep this subject in the forefront, because we believe that their action so far from doing the Government harm or so far from doing harm to the principles of the Finance Act, has the contrary effect. It is very strange to find the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford telling us that we never hear anything of the Finance Act on Liberal platforms. The fact is that there is no subject which at the present time is more constantly referred to than the Budget of 1909, and if there is one thing which holds a larger place than another in the by-elections in the country, and on Liberal platforms, it is the further reform following on the principles which were for the first time brought into our legislation by the Budget of 1909. We therefore welcome all these discussions on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under the Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 21) BILL.— [By Order.]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. BECK: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    Those of us who are intimate with the rural districts are aware that in this matter we are fighting a case which will be a difficult one, and which perhaps on the surface does not appear to be a very serious one. But we believe, and very strongly believe, that in resisting this Bill we are making a stand for the very existence of county council government. We believe that it is impossible, especially in small counties, that these areas can be cut out of the county council area and that the county councils can continue to perform their duties adequately and well. We fight this Provisional Order Bill because of Cambridge, Luton, and Wakefield, but, above all, we fight for the principle of the whole thing. We fight against this policy of enabling any town which contains a population of 50,000 being cut out of the rateable area of the county council in whose district it is situated. In the county in which I happen to live, Bedfordshire, from which it is proposed to cut out Luton, we have some striking examples of what effect these sort of Orders have on small counties. Not only has our rating gone up enormously within the last six or seven years, as between 1907–8 and 1912–13 our county rates have gone up from £32,219 to £57,578, but what I want to point out particularly is that if you are going to allow a town like Luton, which is only just over the 50,000 margin, to declare itself a county borough, then you cannot resist the claim of a town like Bedford to do the same thing, since it is just below the 50,000 margin. In a county

    2287
    like Bedfordshire you have this extraordinary position, that if you let those two towns become county boroughs you reduce your rateable population in the rural districts from 194,000 to 105,000, so that you practically halve your rateable population. In these days, when every party in the State vies with one another in declaring that they have the interests of the rural workers at heart, and desire to see the rejuvenation and rebirth of the rural districts, and when, as a rule, every member preaches that sort of doctrine, for I think we all do, it is incumbent upon us to protect these rural areas fom this kind of emasculation.
    Look at what is happening in county councils at present and to local authorities generally. This House, especially during recent years, is continually putting fresh duties upon these local bodies. We find that in education and in main roads and in many other things, fresh standards of excellence are set up, and these local authorities are asked to conform to them. In the little county in which I live this increase of standard has very nearly doubled the expenditure in the county area. The question of roads is a particularly burning one. Here you have a town like Luton, or a town like Cambridge, which wishes to be taken out of the county area, and the amount that has been spent on the roads of those localities is quite prodigious, an amount very largely, if not almost entirely, for the benefit of people who run motors and live in those particular towns. What we plead for to-night is that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board shall call a halt in this policy which is being pursued. We say that it is not fair, especially after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said repeatedly in Budget statements that this whole question of local rates is under consideration, and as to the right portion which should be borne by the locality and by the State, to pursue a policy like this of emasculating county council areas. You cannot do it.
    I know that the hon. Members who represent these county boroughs will get up and say, "It is very hard on us that we, with our own burdens and our own desires and hopes, should be asked to carry the county council partly on our backs." There may be some truth in that, though I do not think there is a great deal, but what I say is, that Parliament has set up this machinery of the county councils. Those
    2288
    county councils have gone to great expenditure. They have gathered together skilled men of every kind in order to carry on the business of local government, and we do say that you ought not to hamper and to hinder those bodies until you have got some great scheme to lay before the House. If you are going to bring in some great scheme of local government or of rating, then we can discuss the matter at length. We complain that this has been a regular thing, so that any borough containing 50,000 people feels that it has the right under the Act of 1888 to come forward and claim to be made a county borough. I do not think the Act ever intended that to be so. The original intention of the Bill was, I believe, 100,000. An hon. Friend says that it was 200,000, but whether it was 100,000 or 200,000 which should have this privilege, everyone knows that the tendency since then has been to mass people more in the towns and draw them from the country. I do maintain that the Local Government. Board and my right hon. Friend should take a review of the particular circumstances of the case, and should put a stop to this automatic creation of county boroughs. I appeal not only to county Members. We are a rustic people and are quite accustomed to being neglected and cold-shouldered by our more civilised confreres in the towns. But I do say this is not a mere matter for rustic people; it is a national matter, and you cannot get any prosperity into your county areas if you are going to strike a blow in this way at the county councils. I do not want to weary the House with figures, and I shall not do so. But all parties are talking now about small holdings. Some say that people should be tenants, others that they should be owners. In the Cambridge County Council you have one of the most enlightened county councils in England as regards small holdings. They have worked the Act to the utmost of their ability, and I gay that it is nothing less than cruel to take away from such a county council a great rating area. I have the greatest respect and affection for Cambridge, but I maintain that you ought not to allow this system to work automatically. You ought to consider the whole question on its merits. We, who represent county areas, with badly paid and very poor people, will consider that your protestations of affection for our Deeds and wants are little less than hypocritical, if you cut into our rateable area in this way. I beg to move.
    Sir RAN DOLF BAKER: I rise to second the Amendment. I have no direct interest in the matter personally, because I live neither in Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, nor in the West Riding of Yorkshire. To me it is a matter of principle. This gradual encroachment on the county council areas, this setting up of independent county boroughs, this establishment of imperium in imperio in county after county, will inevitably result in the decay of county council overnment. It is chiefly on that ground that I second this Amendment. It will probably be somewhat difficulty to induce hon. Members to support our proposal on this particular measure, because with his usual astuteness the President of the Local Government Board, instead of dealing with these three boroughs separately, has included them in the one Bill, although they are not really on the same footing. There is, first of all, Cambridge. I have very little doubt that if we could get the Members of the House present to listen to the arguments, and to vote on the question of Cambridge alone, we could succeed in defeating the proposal. Cambridge is the strongest possible illustration of the effect of this policy. Cambridge is the centre of the county. Now that its population has reached 50,000, it is endeavouring to get itself formed into a county borough, leaving the rest of the county, composed, with very few exceptions, of small or medium-sized villages, to finance the administration of the roads, education, and the police throughout the county. The modern tendency is for young men educated at the expense of the county to migrate into the towns and earn their living there. As to roads, an enormous amount of the traffic on the main roads is to and from Cambridge. It is a growing practice for big tradesmen in the towns to have large motor delivery vans, which they send to the surrounding villages, and thus take the trade away from the small village tradesmen. These big tradesmen wish to live in a county borough, and to be exempt to a large extent from the rating for the main roads outside, of which they have the greatest benefit. That is a clear instance of how very unfair and hard this practice is. As regards the police, the county police, paid for out of the county rate, form a kind of reserve to be drafted into the centres of population whenever they are needed. The case of Luton is somewhat similar to that of Cambridge. It is not exactly on
    2290
    the same footing, because you have in Bedfordshire the town of Bedford, which is nearly as large as Luton, but is not at present desiring to become a county borough. If, however, you make Luton a county borough, you are directly inviting Bedford to do the same. Bedfordshire County Council might survive the loss of Luton, but if Bedford went as well, it would be impossible for the county council to go on. I do not know the case of Wakefield so well. It is probably not on the same footing as Cambridge and Luton, and it is much more difficult to oppose it on the same grounds, but I have no doubt that the general principle is the same. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that these towns have gone to a considerable expense in having local inquiries and so forth, and that therefore the Bill ought to go to a Committee upstairs. The danger of that is that Committees are rather apt to think that Provisional Orders have to go through, that they are really Orders of the President, who intends to have his will carried out. The line of argument is that the Local Government Board have held inquiries, gone into the whole question, and agreed to the proposal; that the right hon. Gentleman has brought the Bill forward, and therefore the proposal must have a very strong feeling in its favour. It is because this is a matter of principle that we are asking the House not to accept that particular form of pleading which the right hon. Gentleman, I know, is going to give us an instance of directly he arises, wherever that may be, and not to say that because these various boroughs have gone to the trouble and expense of getting up their case that therefore they must necessarily be allowed to get their Bill. Those of us who are interested in county administration all desire most earnestly to protest against the doctrine with which this House is asked to agree, that wherever a county borough gets up to the number of 50,000, that therefore it shall have the right to come to this House and to be made into a county borough. We believe that is absolutely contrary to the interests of local government in this country. No doubt the borough concerned scores as against the larger place, or it would not go to the trouble and expense that it does. No doubt the hon. Member for Cambridge—who, I believe, is going to support this very earnestly—will be ardently in favour of the Bill. And why? Because he thinks that his constituents and the people of this

    2291
    borough are going to score very heavily. No doubt. That is why they have gone to all the trouble and expense of bringing this forward. But they are going to score at somebody else's expense, and that person will he the unfortunate county ratepayer, who has already to bear far too heavy a burden, as I believe it is generally admitted, on his shoulders at the present time. It is for that reason that we are asking the House not to pass this Bill.
    Mr. ALMERIC PAGET: I should like to say a few words against the Amendment which has been presented. I wondered why the hon. Member for Saffron Walden came forward in this matter until I realised that the hon. Member at one time sat for the Wisbech Division of Cambridgeshire, and, therefore, he might be considered. to have some strong feeling on this matter. I have listened with great interest to a few of the arguments which have been presented in favour of this Amendment. I was very glad indeed to hear from the hon. Member who has just sat down that, at any rate, Cambridge, he thought, had really a clear case. I am going to confine my remarks to the borough of Cambridge. That borough is fully entitled to the carrying out of the Provisional Order Bill that it has asked for, from whatever point of view the question is considered; from the point of view of history, population. rateable value, and of the distinction of the place. I may remind the House that the first charter of Cambridge goes as far back as 1120; that ever since the thirteenth century Cambridge has been a centre of learning; was indeed one of the mediaeval centres of learning in Europe. The permanent population at the present time is somewhere about 58,000. This is larger than that of sixteen of the seventy-five county boroughs. In term time the population rises as high as 61,000, which is greater than that of nineteen of the county boroughs. The rateable value of Cambridge is £380,000, which is larger than that of twenty-two of the existing county boroughs. I think you may count upon the fingers of your hand the great towns of this country where the rates are any lower. I should say that all the conditions laid down by the Local Government Act of 1888 in relation to this matter have been carried out. The county council has been at the two inquiries most ably represented. Therefore I think Cambridge is fully entitled to what it asks for by the Bill.
    2292
    Two inquiries have been held. The first was an inquiry into the extension of the borough boundary. This was confirmed. The second inquiry had relation to this Local Government Bill. Every argument. possible on behalf of the county council was ably brought forward, and every consideration was given at both of the inquiries to the arguments used. The chief objections have been directed against the Local Government Act itself, and not against the borough or its Bill. There have been no suggestions from anyone of any maladministration by the borough, and it does seem very hard indeed that at this late date, after all the trouble and expense which the borough has been put to, that the borough should lose its case. One of the arguments brought forward by Sir George Fordham, the able chairman of the Cambridgeshire county council, was that conditions are very much changed; that though in 1888, 50,000 was a large population, now it is no longer so considered. The Prime Minister himself, at one of these recent inquiries, said he remembered very well that when the Act was being first considered in the House, the minimum population was put. at 150,000. Shortly afterwards by agreement it was reduced to 100,000, and before the Bill became an Act, the figure had been reduced to what it now stands at—that is, 50,000. There has never been a single refusal to any of the other county boroughs outside the Metropolitan area. I might cite one instance, that of Oxford, where the population is 53,000, which has been given the status of a county borough. Another objection is that by this measure you take out of the county one half of the population and one half of the rateable value, and that the county, minus the borough, would not have anything left but a fringe of villages, with no class of people in them to administer the county satisfactorily.
    One other argument advanced against our proposition was that there is no great distinctive industry in Cambridge. In, reply to that I might very respectfully suggest to this House that we manufacture brains, which are, perhaps, of equal value to the country as the manufacture of cotton, steel, or anything else. If the arguments of our opponents be well founded, then the greater the population and rateable value of the borough, the less it will be entitled to be made into a county borough. Another argument as to administration has been put forward. I would only suggest that there have been four or

    2293
    five different places. I will mention a few. Ely, Hunts, Soke of Peterborough, and Rutland, where the administration has been very successfully carried out, and where the population and the rateable value are considerably smaller. Of course, as hon. Members know very well, there are a good many borough grievances, but they seem chiefly to be on account of county road administration. I would point out that there are only fifteen miles out of sixty miles, or 25 per cent., of main roads in the borough itself, whereas in the county there are 257 miles out of 744 miles of main roads, or 33 per cent. A borough in that position is very much starved on account of the lack of sufficient grants from the county council for its own roads. Cambridge is an ancient city, with narrow and tortuous streets, and not enough money in the borough has been found for making the improvements desirable. Then there are a lot of the old bridges not up to modern requirements for the burdens they have to bear, and again there is not a sufficient amount of money forthcoming with which to make the desired alteration. The borough considers that a great deal of money has been spent unwisely on district county roads, and that these roads have not come properly within the Highways Act of 1878.
    There has been considerable friction in one particular case where the borough has claimed against the county in which they asked for a considerable amount of money, and for which the county council offered £800 less than the amount asked for, and they had to go before an inspector, and the inspector gave them another £400. Then Alderman Howard, tile chairman of the Road Committee of the county council, admitted that the preservation of the roads had been more or less a failure; that the cost had increased as much as 44 per cent., whereas at the time the position of the district councils undertaking these roads had reduced the cost to as much as 8 per cent. We naturally say that if Sir George Fordham, who has most ably represented the county council all the way through, has got such an unanswerable case, we cannot see how it is he is so very anxious that this Bill shall not pass its Second Reading and be referred to a Committee upstairs. The strongest argument I know of in connection with Cambridge is put forward in the statement on behalf of the corporation when they state that the proposed change is desirable in the interests of good local government, that it
    2294
    will do away with dual control, much overlapping, and divided responsibility and discord between two classes of representative bodies. I do not propose to go into greater detail. I only say these few words on behalf of the borough of Cambridge, as I have reason to suppose there will be others who will speak in connection with Luton and Wakefield. I protest against this Amendment, and I hope, before the discussion is ended, it will be withdrawn and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, so that any financial adjustments necessary may be fully considered by a Select Committee upstairs.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I need hardly explain that I do not rise to take part in this discussion in any sense on behalf of the Government, for of course I gladly acknowledge that this has nothing to do or has only a very remote connection with the great Empire of India which I have the honour to represent. I am enabled to speak to-night owing, if I may say so with due respect, to the generous way in which the President of the Local Government Board has met those who differ from him on this particular question. Young men who have had the' advantage of his invariable and generous assistance and kindness, both educationally, politically and socially, have learned to respect him. I take part in this Debate because the Bill under discussion concerns, and concerns directly, the county which I have the honour to represent, and of which I and the hon. Member for Newmarket, who has just spoken, are the only representatives in this House. The hon. Member for Newmarket is a newcomer to this House, and I would instance the unanimity of opinion which exists in the county of Cambridge in regard to this Bill by the fact that although no one worked harder than I did to prevent the hon. Member's return to Parliament, although no one is more sorry than I am that he is here instead of another, yet at the same time I gladly welcome the fact that he and I are in common accord in this matter that affects the interests of our respective constituents. I do not forget that I also have the honour to represent nearly 1,000 voters in the borough of Cambridge, but I am bound to say that when there comes a conflict of interests between those who live in the county, I unhesitatingly intend to voice the opinions of my Constituents on the subject.
    I suggest that there has never been: before the House since the passage of the

    2295
    Local Government Act of 1888 a case of this particular kind. I should like, if the House will bear with me, to read a few figures, for by these figures I can represent the pith of our case. The area of the county of Cambridge is only 315,168 acres, the population is 128,322 persons—I am quoting from the Census of 1911—and the assessable value of the county rate is £717,383. That is the area and population with which we are dealing. Now I would invite the House to consider from these figures the result of the proposal now before us. It is proposed to withdraw from this area of 315,168 acres an area of only 5,457 acres, but it is proposed to withdraw from this population of 128,322 persons a population of not less than 55,812 persons. It is proposed to withdraw from this assessable value of £717,383 an assessable value of no less than £352,444, so that I am right in saying that whatever you may think of the merits of this particular Bill, in the case of Cambridge, you are taking nearly half the population of the county and more than half the rateable value. I do not think it can be done. The county which I have the honour to represent has shown remarkable and acknowledged efficiency in carrying out the administrative burdens laid upon it from time to time by this House. Further, its administration of secondary education, of small holdings, and of the Insurance Act has been conspicuous by its excellence.
    I would seriously represent to the House that by crippling the county in this way you are presenting serious obstacles in dealing with such matters as secondary education, the new scheme of agricultural education, the sanatorium treatment of tuberculosis under the Insurance Act, and all the other matters which this House of Parliament s so constantly asking the counties to do, and trusting the counties will find energy and money 10 carry out. The fact is we had in Cambridgeshire a very small and compact county. The hon. Member who so ably seconded the Motion for the rejection of this Bill talked about Newmarket. Newmarket is in Suffolk, and the only urban area in the county of Cambridge is the borough of Cambridge with which we are now dealing, a borough centrally situated, a county town, the seat of the Government of the county from which radiate all the railways and all the main roads which connect all the parts of the area known by the name of the county of ambridge. Cambridge is the heart of 2296
    the county, and if you take out that town you are left with a ring of small villages surrounding the town. I think I am right in saying that there is not a single village in Cambridge, or a collection of human beings outside the borough of Cambridge, which has a population of 5,000 inhabitants.
    9.00 P. M.
    I submit that the association of the town with the surrounding rural districts which make up the administrative county is naturally complete and for the common benefit. The county town is the commercial centre of an important agricultural district, and this district has been famous during a long historic period and is still famous for its agriculture. In this town the rural population finds a market for its corn and cattle and banking facilities, and all the trade of the town of Cambridge, with the exception of the trade brought by the universities, comes from the county of Cambridge. It is to that county that the townspeople owe their trade, their profit, the growth of their population, and to the town is entirely due the prosperity of the agricultural community by which it is surrounded. The trade of the borough is carried on through the county along these county roads which radiate from the town, and the heavy motor traffic which has Care-bridge for its destination proceeds along the county roads. I am quoting for a different purpose the figures which the hon. Member for Cambridge quoted. If this Bill is carried, of 272 miles of main roads now maintained by the whole area for its common benefit, 257½ miles would remain in the new administrative county to be chargeable upon that area with nearly half the population and more than half the rateable value. The hon. Member opposite has suggested financial compensation, but no financial compensation could possibly make up for the loss which is sustained by cutting out the heart of the county, removing the hub from the wheel on which it has revolved so long, and leaving the hub spinning by itself and the rim to roll away as best it may. That would, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my Constituents, be an outrage against the principles of local government. Cambridge—and I say it with no disrespect to the borough in which I happen to live—lives on the one hand as a commercial centre upon the university population, and on the other hand upon the surrounding agricultural industry. I do claim support, support,

    2297
    and the unanimous support, irrespective of party, of one of those factors in the prosperity of the town of Cambridge, namely, the agricultural community. The university of which I am also proud has declared, so far as I can understand, that its official attitude on this question is neutral. I am, therefore, bound to form my own opinion of the effects of this proposal on the university. Financially it seems to me clear that my university will be a loser, but I presume if this Bill becomes law some sort of financial compensation inadequate though it must be, will have to be offered. This proposal will impose a burden upon the rates of the borough of Cambridge for fourteen or fifteen years, and that will put a burden upon the University of Cambridge, although only a temporary one. More than that, the colleges and the University of Cambridge own 30,000 acres of land in the county with rent charges, tithes, and other increments from real property, and all this will be charged permanently with the increased county rates which will result from the alteration made by this Bill, so that the university stands to lose substantially, and, in part, permanently, and I know too well that its financial resources are not so large and adequate to its great and growing duties that it can afford to stand any further financial burden. Honestly, I cannot for the life of me see the advantages of the proposal. Cambridge borough, if it had a financial grievance, can secure redress of that financial burden far better than Cambridge county can. The university is to suffer, the county is to lose nearly half its population and more than half of its assessable value.
    This proposal is not based upon any geographical consideration at all, because the county of Cambridge will then consist of a large, thinly-populated country district in which the largest village has a population of 4,082 souls, the next largest only a population of 2,393, and very few other villages with a population of over 1,000; and so I suggest, in all seriousness, to all those who, whether they represent boroughs or towns, are interested in the development and prosperity of rural England, that neither the geographical character or the quantity or quality of the population of the area which would result from the passage of this Bill gives any ground for hope that this area will be an efficient unit of local government. As we go on year after year, the legislation of this Chamber results in putting greater and greater administrative burdens upon the men who
    2298
    live in our country districts. We pass this legislation partly for considerations of public health and social benefits, and partly because we desire to pursue the policy of decentralisation. We have no. right to do this unless we are careful too avoid injuring the machinery of local government and so hampering it as to make it incompetent to do its duty. I am not so sure, having regard to the enormous responsibilities, both financial and personal, which the districts of this country have to-day, that you will not eventually find it necessary to amalgamate areas rather than to sub-divide them. Therefore I really and seriously think that this proposal is to be accurately described as a retrograde proposal, and I would urge the House not to set high-spirited public men and willing taxpayers and ratepayers an impossible task by means of the passage of a Bill which, while it will affect, I am convinced, serious local interests, will also set the worse kind of example for future local government. legislation.
    Mr. DENMAN: If any hon. Member of the House could convince those of us who are interested in boroughs of the inadvisability of the Bill which we hope to. read a second time shortly, it is the hon. Member who has spoken, and spoken with so great enthusiasm, for the cause which he obviously feels deeply. There are others who feel differently towards that cause. Cambridgeshire has been occupying the time of a great many of us for several months in various ways. It began by moving an association to send a deputation to the Prime Minister in order to show that they ought to have some special treatment, and not come under the ordinary procedure of the Local Government Act of 1888. They then come here and utilise the great gifts of their representatives to again invite us to go outside of, or rather to neglect the Local Government Act of 1888. Those of us who support this Bill can, I think, afford to deal with the question very tersely. We ask for one thing only, and that is that the Act of 1888 should be allowed to run its ordinary course. Consider what has to happen under that Act. The borough has, in the first place, to represent that it, is desirable it should become a county borough. After that has been done, there has to be a local inquiry conducted by the Local Government Board, and, after that is satisfied, there has to be a Provisional Order Bill, such as we are now discussing.

    2299
    surely, it is clear that all the details that affect the question of desirability and determine whether the Bill should succeed or not are details which we cannot possibly discuss in a full House. We, who support the borough case, have claimed throughout that the ordinary practice which has hitherto prevailed should prevail on this occasion, that the Bill should go to a Committee, that there all the numerous details as to the relative advantages should be heard, and that skilled counsel should put them before one of the Select Committees, in which we all have so much trust. We could go on debating the details of each town—I am glad to say that I am not interested in any of them—until eight o'clock in the morning with great happiness and vigour, but what should we gain by it? We cannot decide this question here, and I do ask that the practice which has previously prevailed whereby these Bills go to a Select Committee upstairs and are fully examined should be adopted on this occasion as on all others.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I hope that this Debate, which really does concern matters of as great importance for the good government of this country as many public measures which come before us, will neither develop nor degenerate into a conflict between the boroughs as such and the counties as such. We are here to promote good administration in all parts of the country, and the most sparsely populated rural area has just the same demand on the sympathy and judgment of this House as the most densely populated part of our great cities. To-night, it is perfectly true, we are discussing a Motion which is not often made, but we are discussing it on a Bill which does, of necessity, bring about results which have never previously occurred. I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that we ought to be careful and jealous of the procedure of this House in sending upstairs Bills, the details of which can there be better considered, but this House is surely the master and not the slave of its own procedure, and this House, surely, is not only entitled but is bound to consider, and I am confident is willing to consider, any case which is exceptional in an exceptional way. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, has already pointed out to the House the special characteristics of the first of these Provisional Orders.
    2300
    Will the House forgive me if I venture to point out the difference between this and other counties, and the difference between 1913 and 1888? In 1888 county government was confined to a very small number of subjects of administration. County government, alike on its representative side, and on its side of constructive development, was only just born, and it was natural and inevitable that Parliament then should look upon the great municipalities, whose history and traditions are the pride of us all, as being the one and only complete force of local government then known and exhibited in the country. But since 1888 you have had growing up in the English counties a somewhat different type of local government, as far-reaching as the local government in any great city, dealing with an ever-increasing variety of subjects, and face to face with the same problems of human health and happiness—under conditions no less difficult, though they be different in many particulars; and I am sure that no Member of this House, whether he sits for a borough or a county, can doubt for a moment that the difficulties of local self-government in counties are quite as great as they are in boroughs, or that they need the same care, the same skill, and the same support from this House as do the great problems of municipal government. Therefore, to-day, in 1913, you are in an entirely different position as regards the local government of this country from that in which you were in 1888. Here you have two types of local government, each fully developed, one the municipal or county borough type, and the other the county council type. Surely, it is the duty of this House to see that neither of these types, which are the best known to civilisation at the present moment, should be sacrificed to the other. You should not destroy a county to make a county borough or abolish a county borough in order to equip and strengthen a county.
    Here, for the first time in our history, is a Bill brought before this House which does in effect destroy an existing county council. I do not wish to omit any facts whichever way they point. I know in regard to the Liberty of Peterborough and the Isle of Ely, that their raison d'être is largely historical. I remember reading the Debates of 1888, I do not know whether the Liberty of Peterborough was part of the administrative county or not, but anyone who happens to have looked at those Debates will agree that these places were made separate counties largely

    2301
    because of their historical independence and separateness, because of the very strong local feeling, and because they were already equipped with the necessary machinery of county government. None of these have ever been created by special Act of Parliament, in the same way as the county of Cambridge would be reduced to a group of disconnected villages if this Bill became law. I hope it will not be considered by hon. Members of this House, however they may vote, and whatever places they may represent, that there is any feeling of antagonism towards borough government on the part of those who implore the House to consider very carefully before it takes so new a departure on the narrow foundation of a private Bill. I have lived in a county borough nearly all my life. My Constituents are all members of borough or urban districts, and I have the same affection, partly geographical and partly personal as other Members have for the localities which send us here.
    I am here to-night to speak, if I may, for the moment, on behalf of the County Councils' Association. The whole of the governing bodies of the counties in England and Wales, with two exceptions, which do not belong to the association, have considered this matter with the greatest care. They feel all due respect for the procedure of this House in sending private Bills to Committees upstairs. They also feel they have a duty not only to the councils of which they are members, but to local government as they understand it, and they believe it to be for the good of the country that no county council should be destroyed merely to make a distinction between a non-county and a county borough. I have ventured to put down on the Paper an Instruction. I am most anxious to avoid a Division in this House, if one can be avoided, and a growing embitterment of the feeling between counties and boroughs, an unhappy and disastrous feeling between two great classes of persons, who alike have onerous duties put on them by this House, none of them made easy of performance by piping rates and inadequate contributions. I wonder whether it would be possible for the President of the Local Government Board to embody in some statement a reiteration of the assurance which the Prime Minister gave to our deputation, that no Provisional Order should be prejudged by the fact that it went there as a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board. One or two
    2302
    Members have spoken to-night about the "ordinary course." If that were the view of the House it would put many of us necessarily into a position of undeviating and unhesitating opposition, if it is to be taken, as a matter of course, that every borough which counts over 50,000 is thereby to become a county borough, no matter what happens to the country around. That would be intolerable. On the other hand, it may be equally intolerable to say that, because a borough has over 50,000 population, it must not become a county borough. I am only anxious for fair play between the two, and if my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board can, and I am sure he will if he can, give an assurance that if this Bill does go upstairs the Committee will be absolutely free to realise that, though the Local Government Board, in one sense, sends the Order there, it merely means that it is sent there because it is a matter worthy of impartial and wide-spirited discussion and settlement—if my right hon. Friend can accept the Instruction which I have ventured to put on the Paper to the effect—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee particularly to consider the probable effect that the confirmation of each Provisional Order included in the Bill would have on the capacity, whether financial or otherwise, of each county council affected to continue efficiently county council administration in the residue of the county area."
    If my right hon. Friend can accept that, I, for one, will make an appeal to both sides in this controversy. I would make an appeal to my hon. Friend who represents the county of Cambridge to allow the Bill to go upstairs, and I will also appeal to my hon. Friends who represent Cambridge and Luton to agree to this special Instruction. Since 1888, in every single case in Which a county borough has been created it has left to the county affected a far greater rateable value, a far more numerous population, a far less effective organisation for county government than would be the case either in Cambridge or Luton; therefore if Members of the House who are most familiar with the municipal point of view will agree to this Instruction, which merely asks the Committee, in a case which is unique and exceptional, to pay particular attention to those features which are unique and exceptional, surely that is fair. In that case if this Instruction can be accepted, I would make my

    2303
    appeal to both sides, because I am quite certain we shall never have peace in these controversies if we neglect the particular features of exceptional cases. On the other hand I feel the weight of argument which would seek to bring this under the ordinary Parliamentary procedure if it can be so brought without prejudice and injury to an area put in deadly peril.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I fully recognise the spirit and tone of the speech to which we have just listened with so much pleasure. I and my hon. Friend who has just spoken have a profound belief in the development of local government. I have sometimes thought that possibly there is more in front of local government than there is in front of Imperial Government, and that a large part of our work in the future will be to extend the scope and opportunities of local government. Therefore I should hail, as my hon. Friend does, with sorrow and regret any indication of bitter antagonism between county government on the one hand and borough government on the other. It is because I desire to have that procedure provided under the Local Government Act of 1888, because I look on that procedure as the best means whereby this difficulty can be fairly met, that now I am opposing the Amendment which is before the House. That Amendment desires to do away with these Bills altogether, and I would ask the House to consider what the effect would be. We had, a moment or two ago, an admirable and eloquent speech from the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who represents the Chesterton Division of Cambridgeshire, and whose speeches we always listen to with great pleasure. He stated that he spoke as a representative of a Division of the county of Cambridgeshire. Immediately before him an hon. Gentleman spoke as a representative of Cambridge town. As I listened to the two speeches I thought that, supposing the representative character of those two Gentlemen had been transposed, we should have had exactly the opposite speeches from the two hon. Gentlemen in question. I submit that it is not by speeches of that description that a question of this importance has to be dealt with. This House itself is not the tribunal to consider matters of fact. Here we discuss principles, while the facts are matters which have to go to a Committee. Instead of the Committee provided for this Bill being a
    2304
    Grand Committee it is a Select Committee, which hears evidence on oath, takes all the facts into consideration, and afterwards comes to a definite conclusion.
    In opposing the Amendment now before the House, I, for one, am not pledging myself to Cambridge, either for it or against it. I am only asking that Cambridge shall have fair play, and that Cambridge shall have a chance of submitting her case, not to a House of representatives who, county or borough, speak according to their representation, but to a Select Committee, which upon evidence on oath will have listened to all the facts of the case and will then decide in accordance with the provision of the Act of 1888. What is that provision? It provides, in words which seem to me exactly to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, that while a population of 50,000 gives a primâfacie case, it does not give an absolute case, that everything has to be taken into consideration, and that the basis is "if it be desirable." Those are the very words used in the Section of the Act which governs this procedure. Those are the governing words by which the Select Committee to which the Bill will be referred are bound, therefore it is the only reasonable and proper way by which it can be done. What will be the effect if this Amendment is carried 1 It will be a slap in the face for Cambridge, and as much as to say that Cambridge shall have no look in at all. If the Bill passes its Second Reading, the House decides neither one way nor the other; it provides a means whereby before the Select Committee all aspects of the case can be considered, on the one hand, from the borough standpoint, and on the other hand, from the county standpoint, and the Committee after fairly considering the whore question, will report to this House. Then we shall not merely have had representative speeches from Gentlemen who represent counties on the one hand or boroughs on the other, but we shall have a Report from the Committee which has faced the whole matter from a judicial standpoint, having heard the whole of the evidence and not merely impassioned speeches. With that Report before us, we shall be in a position to come to a definite conclusion upon the Third Reading whether we are in favour of this Bill or opposed to it. That is the natural and proper course to pursue. I will only indicate, what has been indicated by a

    2305
    very much higher authority than myself, that it is the usual course advised by the Prime Minister himself. We have not come to this question for the first time today. There have been two deputations to the Prime Minister—a deputation led by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, representing county councils, and another deputation which I had the honour to lead, representing municipal associations, and both sides were placed before him. I would point out, so that this case shall not be prejudiced, that the Prime Minister, having heard direct representatives from Cambridge and direct representatives from Luton, used these words:—
    "I do not pronounce any judgment about that, except to say that I think you have made out that these are not unique or isolated or exceptional instances."
    As the Prime Minister took that view, with these definite statements before him, it seems to me to level the statements in the other direction made here to-night. That is not the point to which I should desire to lead the House at this juncture. I desire to lead it on the lines of the letter written by the Prime Minister's secretary after the second deputation had approached him. He would not come to a final decision when he met us, and when we had the honour of coining before him he reserved himself for consideration with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The words used help us in the direction I pointed out and are in the spirit manifested by my hon. Friend, and, so far as I understand it, carry out entirely the spirit and aim of the Local Government Act, 1888. This is what Mr. Bonham Carter wrote on the Prime Minister's behalf:—
    "The Prime Minister does not think that adequate reasons have been shown for referring this question to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, as was suggested by the speakers on behalf of the County Councils' Association, and he is of opinion, therefore, that the Provisional Orders should go in the usual way before a Select Committee, where full opportunity will he given for the consideration of all the relevant circumstances, and the Committee will have full discretion to dell with each case on its merits."
    So far as I understand the situation, that is what I accept. It seems to be the only way in which fairness can be done to the borough on the one hand, and to the county on the other. It is the only way in which we can avoid this miserable county and borough fighting. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn, so that there may be a clear issue in regard to the Bill itself, and that we may have the guidance of the President of the Local
    2306
    Government Board later on in regard to any Instruction which may be moved after the Second Reading is carried.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The very able speech to which we have just listened puts the case we have to consider in a light which will commend itself to all the interests concerned. What we want to know is whether what he has said, that the effect of the Bill passing is not a deciding one, is the fact or not. The reason for the opposition shown to this Bill is that the constant practice for a considerable number of years has been for Committees to regard the granting of a Provisional Order by the Local Government Board as a practical sanction of the demand of the particular town to be made a county borough. We complain that recent experience has shown that Committees have not considered that they had a free hand to deal with each question entirely on its merits. The fact is that in no case of a town desiring to become a county borough has the Committee refused its sanction. We shall therefore be glad if we can get an official assurance from the President of the Local Government Board on the lines of the letter written by the Prime Minister. Until some such assurance is given we are bound to oppose this Bill, at any rate, those of us who have a strong case to present against the granting of this new status to the various towns mentioned in the Bill. We are bound to oppose the Bill until some definite rule is laid down by authority under which we can be absolutely certain that real fair play will be secured, and that the case will be considered absolutely on its merits. I have been asked on behalf of the West Riding Council to put their case. The case of Wakefield is rather different from the case of the city of Cambridge, but it is a great mistake to think that the West Riding of Yorkshire has not seriously suffered on many occasions by the creation of many county boroughs during recent years. The last creation of two county borough, Barnsley and Dewsbury, which undoubtedly caused a feeling in Wakefield which has now animated them in asking for this new status, has had a very serious effect on the assessable value of the West Riding, and has already caused a considerable increase in their rates. Therefore it is not fair to say that the West Riding of Yorkshire is not affected.
    The city of Wakefield is asking for these powers—I say it in no sense of hostility to that interesting city—simply and solely on

    2307
    the ground of having arrived at a population of 50,000. When the Local Government inquiry was held, the mayor of the city, who was their chief witness, had no reason to give, beyond the existence of the 50,000 population, why this change should he made. There was no advantage that the city would gain, and he had no complaint to make of the county administration. They only arrived at this 50,000 population because the county had added a wing to the county asylum in Wakefield. There is no chance, according to the evidence which they themselves gave before the Local Government inquiry, as far as I can see, of the city of Wakefield suffering, but, on the other hand, there is every chance of the county suffering considerably. When it was a question where the West Riding County Council should have its headquarters, the city of Wakefield brought, a petition, and canvassed vigorously among the members of the county council, and pointed out to them the disadvantage they would be under if they set up their headquarters in any city which was not in their own area. Wakefield is a most inconvenient railway centre, and cannot compare with Leeds or Bradford. It was fully understood by the representatives of the county at the time that if they set up their headquarters at Wakefield, Wakefield would remain part of their integral area, and the great advantake which Wakefield considered they would have by remaining there was that they would be contributing largely the rates of part of their own area, and at present the county pays no less than £7,000 a year in rates to the city of Wakefield. It is a most ancient and interesting city; it is now a cathedral city and naturally has its ambition. It has seen other towns achieve the dignity of county boroughs, and there is a strong sentimental feeling that they ought to have their reward. We do not know that the Committee will have a chance of judging this extremely strong case, and I have had to put the facts before the House. I think there is a very strong case for the West Riding area, and I hope it will have a chance of being fairly considered if the Bill cannot be rejected.
    Mr. MARSHALL: As representing the borough that the hon. Member has been referring to, I feel that one or two statements have been made with which he will hardly expect me to agree, particularly the statement that our present position in
    2308
    regard to population is due to the unfortunate extension of the Asylum Buildings. That may be perhaps unfortunate from this point of view that it may have been almost coincident in time with a change in the representation of Wakefield from Conservative to Liberal; but I can assure the hon. Member that is not in any sense the fact in regard to the population question. The population of Wakefield at the last Census was considerably over 2,000 above the 50,000 limit, and it has greatly increased since then, and it would be very easy to show, if I had the latest figures available, that we have several thousand more people than are absolutely necessary to qualify us in regard to the 50,000 limit.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not the fact that the population of Wakefield at the last, Census was 51,311, and is now 52,000, and that in the asylum there are 1,892 patients, and in the prison 806–2,698 in these two, institutions—which brings the population below 50,000?
    Mr. MARSHALL: The hon. Member hag the advantage of me because he has the detailed statement and I have not, but I believe my information is correct that there are several thousand over. But we are not being swayed merely by small considerations of this kind. We have responsibilities to a very large area, which have been properly discharged, and we have now arrived at that position which for a long time past has been deemed to be a position in which a town or borough is capable of taking full advantage of its powers of local self-government. It is on that broader line rather than on any narrow detail that I should urge that the position in regard to Wakefield should not be persisted in. I welcome the statement of the hon. Member (Sir Ryland Adkins) that there was at this moment no real disposition to press the full position which was outlined in the Notice of Motion in regard to the rejection of the Bill. So long as the Instruction is not deemed to carry with it any severe limitation in regard to the Committee, and is merely a general Instruction on the lines that the hon. Member (Mr. G. Thorne) stated when he referred to the letter of the Prime Minister, I should not object to the Instruction being carried if the Bill was read a second time without opposition. It must be understood that this Instruction does not mean simply that the limitation of the financial resources of the county should be regarded as a disqualification of the claim of the borough in

    2309
    question. I wish to refer to what was said by the hon. Member opposite in reference to the alleged pledge given in regard to the county buildings at Wakefield. These buildings were erected about thirty years ago, and it was not merely a question of the fitness of a petition from Wakefield which swayed the council. You may be sure that there was something more than that. They got hold of the question of the facilities for reaching Wakefield by railway from distant parts of the area, and for this reason, and I believe this reason only, it was thought that the county buildings could be built more efficiently and in a better way in Wakefield than in Leeds. The claims of Leeds were strongly advocated, although a county borough itself, and it was not until it w as shown that it would be vastly more expensive to build in Leeds than in Wakefield that the claims of Wakefield were recognized. The other point I wish to make is that the rating of the buildings in Wakefield is not wholly an advantage to Wakefield at present. We, ourselves, pay large sums to the county authorities, which leave them on the balance very much better off than we are by having them there. We pay for main roads a, three penny rate more than comes to us by their contribution. We pay a considerable sum of money over and above what we receive from the county in regard to rates on these buildings. We pay in respect of money spent all over the county in places with which we have no real relation or responsibility. I could show, if it were in order to go into the matter, that Wakefield is financially a considerable loser by being tied to the county in regard to its financial matters.
    I will not proceed with that point beyond saying that we wish the county council to realise that it is out of no hostility to them that we take the attitude we have taken. We believe it would be more economical and efficient in every way that we should have the powers which have in similar conditions been conferred on other boroughs. We should realise that the West Riding County Council has since the creation of three county boroughs actually increased its rateable value enormously. When the first borough was constituted some years ago, the assessible value of the West Riding was £7,027,000. Two other boroughs have recently been created, and the assessable value to-day is £7,853,289. It is manifest to all those who know the West Riding
    2310
    County Council that they will not be injured by losing so small an area financially or in regard to administration. They will rather be bettered, because the borough of Wakefield itself, liberated from the control of the county council, will at the same time take off the county council something of that enormous administrative burden which certainly it is not able to bear with ease and comfort. The case in detail can easily be considered by the Committee upstairs. I hope it will not be thought that because a conciliatory spirit has been shown to-night by hon. Members that Wakefield thinks in this matter it has a weak case, or that it accepts the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite that the West Riding has a strong case. The case must go to the Committee upstairs absolutely free from all prejudice, and on that understanding if the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, I should be content with the assurances given with regard to the Instruction.
    Mr. BLACK: I desire to say a few words with reference to the Division of Bedfordshire, which I represent. I have given this matter very careful consideration, and I am satisfied that, so far as Bedfordshire is concerned, the disadvantages of the proposed change by far outweigh the advantages. This proposal will set up in the county several interests with the result of creating divided counsels. At the present time town and village are united by common interests. The town of Luton draws hundreds of its factory workers from the neighbouring villages. They come on foot and bicycle, by road and by train, to work daily in the factories of Luton, and are a source of advantage to the borough. Their interests are one, and their welfare is bound up one with the other. The county council of Bedfordshire and its administration is progressive, and, in my opinion, capable. It will be an evil day for Bedfordshire when the county is split up into separate entities with divided interests. The Instruction suggested by the hon. Member for Middleton will modify my opposition to the proposal, but it will not entirely remove it, and I wait with interest to hear what the President of the Local Government Board has to say about it. I recognise that the whole of the Debate has been carried on in a very conciliatory spirit, but there are vital interests to the places concerned which must be considered, and I beg the most favourable consideration possible for Bedfordshire from the President of the Local Government Board.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I had not intended to address the House on the question, because it is an extremely delicate one. I have heard county Members speaking most eloquently in favour of the county councils, and I have heard borough Members stating with eloquence the claims of the boroughs. I am in the happy position of representing one of the boroughs now under consideration, and at the same time half of the county of Bedfordshire, and, I submit, the more important half. In these circumstances, I do not propose to offer any comment on the merits of the particular boroughs mentioned in the Bill. I should like to say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton has opened a way out of what has become a serious difficulty, and I would respectfully suggest that the hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection of the Bill should withdraw the Amendment and allow the Instruction to take its place. I would venture to impress upon the President of the Local Government Board the advisability of accepting this Instruction. We all desire, whatever our views may be, that this Bill should go to a Committee upstairs, and I submit that that is the best way out of what threatens to be a very serious difficulty.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: I do not rise as representing a borough, a council, or any interest directly affected at the moment by this particular provision law. My experience in this House has been that in most cases the House has been wrong in opposing the Second Reading of private Bills, but I am glad that this Debate has taken place, and for this reason. I do feel that in Committee work upstairs, particularly in the local legislation Committee, due weight is given and rightly given to representations from the Local Government Board. This particular Bill goes upstairs with the direct imprimatur of the Local Government Board as a Provisional Order. It was not even referred to the Committee appointed ad hoc, but rather to a Committee which takes unopposed Bills, and so I think that it is right in a case where there is a very peculiar application of a previous Act of Parliament, in the light of subsequent Acts of Parliament, and a large devolution of work to local authorities, which has, to a large extent, widened the scope of local authorities since the original Act was passed, this House should send this Bill upstairs in its ordinary course with a particular Instruction that the wider and more far-reaching aspect of the
    2312
    case, as it has been brought forth should be taken into consideration, and that the Committee should feel that they have a wider and more important duty to consider in pronouncing judgment on this Bill, than in the case of the ordinary Provisional Order Bills that go from this House to them.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. NIELD: It is the implication that when the Local Government Board has approved of and sent forward the Provisional Order, it necessarily passes through Committee. It is that danger that causes me to-night to speak of the county Middlesex. If that principle is really to be accepted, it exposes the county to disintegration, which it is impossible to suppose could exist in any other sphere of local government. Since 1888, such an enormous amount of work has been put by this House and the other House on the county councils, that it has been made a matter of the greatest difficulty and cost for a large and populous district like Middlesex, which is relatively small in area, to keep pace with those obligations, except by the expenditure of very large sums of money. I do not want to suggest that we have been led into extravagance by the building, of which Middlesex men are very proud, which is rising on the other side of Parliament Square, and is designed to house the very large staff which it is necessary for us to have, in order to carry on the business of the council. But if it is to be understood that 50,000 inhabitants in an urban district should be regarded as primaâ facie involving the creation of a county borough, we do stand in a very difficult position. Our county contains thirty-one urban districts and two municipal councils. At present there are eight which, if this principle is to be accepted, would be entitled to come forward and ask for separation, and within the next few years, if we are to have regard to the ordinary increase of population which has taken place, there will be an additional six, so that fourteen out of thirty-three populous districts will be swept away, and the remaining ones, which are smaller, mainly in Staines and Uxbridge Unions, will be left with a district wholly unable to bear the cost of administration. Therefore, I ask the House to pause. The matter has come to a head by reason of the opposition which Cambridgeshire in particular has offered to this Provisional Order, and the question of principle should be here and now decided as

    2313
    to whether or not the Committee upstairs are to be bound, in a sense, to the propriety of creating a county borough and cutting away the district from the county area, according to the decision of the Local Government Board. That does open a vista of a very serious danger from the point of view of the Metropolitan county of Middlesex, which will be injured if that principle is allowed to be carried out. No doubt if the Instruction is carried, the Committee upstairs understands that the Second Reading does not mean that they are necessarily to pass the Preamble, then it presents a totally different aspect and each case can be considered on its merits, and what we are doing will not be regarded as anything in the nature of a conclusion. Otherwise, it opens up a vista of a very great danger to those districts which are struggling, as Middlesex is doing, to discharge the duties which this House has put upon them.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: We have heard the very able speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for India. He adduced arguments against this Bill that apply to the county of Cambridge, which, so far, have not been answered. The main argument which we have heard is that an Act was passed in 1881 which permitted boroughs which contain more than a certain number of inhabitants to apply to become county boroughs. I wish to submit respectfully to the House that though that Act gave those boroughs power to apply, it did not withhold from this House the power to refuse, and I most earnestly urge upon this House that they should not, in a haphazard way, pass the Second Reading of this Bill to confer this somewhat empty honour on the town of Cambridge and take away the life-blood of the county.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: The speech of the hon. Member for Ealing was to the effect that an Order of the Local Government Board has always been treated as a final matter in these provisional Orders. May I point out that as a fact the Liverpool Extension Bill, which was supported by the Local Government Board, was rejected by a Committee upstairs, which I think proves that the mere fact that the Local Government Board endorse a Provisional Order in no way implies that a Provisional Order must be accepted by the Committee upstairs? The Local Government Board, which endorses the Provisional Orders, is only carrying out its duty under the Act of
    2314
    1888. It can do no more and it can do no less. Those hon. Members who are supporting the Amendment before the House are, however sympathetic may be their intention, asking the House of Commons to penalise these three boroughs mentioned in the Provisional Order by forbidding them to enjoy the benefits of the Act of 1888. There have been sixteen Provisional Orders incorporating county
    boroughs under the Act of 1888. Not one of them has been opposed in this House by the county councils or in Committee upstairs. This is the first time any opposition has been shown. This opposition's shown against these three boroughs, not on any general principle, but because the representative of the counties think that by incorporating these particular boroughs certain counties are going to suffer. The Act of 1888 was passed to permit every borough with a population of 50,000 and upwards to curve to this House to ask for a local inquiry by the Local Government Board and to have the Provisional Order considered here and sent upstairs. In the words of the Prime Minister:—
    "The Provisional Orders should go in the usual way before a Select Committee, where full opportunity will be given for the consideration of all the relevant circumstances."
    I would like to know what county Member in this august Assembly suggests for a moment that the Prime Minister is doing other than advising the House what ought to be done, and which has always been done in every case of a Provisional Order that has come before the House? As far as the Instruction of the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned, I would point out that the Act itself provides for every consideration being given to every case that can be made out before the Select Committee upstairs. The Act of 1888 says that it is desirable to constitute any borough having a population of not less than 50,000 into a county borough. Before the Select Committee upstairs every argument can be brought to bear, and I do submit with great respect that the House will be making itself ridiculous if it supports the Amendment, and denies to these three boroughs that position which was given to sixteen other boroughs without opposition under the Act of 1888. I am aware that the Under-Secretary for India, and those who agree with him, oppose the application of these three boroughs, but they should seek to alter the law of 1888, if they think it is unfair to the counties. I think a, good case could be made out for an

    2315
    alteration of the law of 1888, because the circumstances which existed at that time are not the circumstances of to-day between counties and boroughs. But that is not the case before us tonight. The Under-Secretary for India is in an isolated majority of one—I hope so, at any rate. His case is that Cambridge especially, and I suppose by implication Luton and Wakefield, should suffer because this Act of 1888 is not satisfactory. I think that such a position would be quite unworthy of this House, and would be a discouragement to every county borough, which, under the Act of 1888, has spent large sums of money to qualify to become a county borough.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I cannot congratulate those who represent the county areas on the way in which they have presented their case. Generally speaking some have taken a position on one side and some on the other. We have heard some who have been urging that this is a question of principle, while others have dealt with matters of detail in regard to particular cases. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite, or even on this side of the House, have been looking to abandoning the Act of 1888 altogether, and going in for some new procedure; others are willing to accept the Act of 1888 and the ordinary procedure, subject to modification. I do think that those who are connected with boroughs are entitled to know on which side those who have urged the case of the county councils rely. I, personally, am interested mainly in the boroughs, and I rather agree with the appeal made by the vice-chairman of the County Councils Association, that we should accept this Bill, and try and treat this as a matter of broad principle. The Act of 1888 has been referred to, and it is on Section 54 of that Act that the whole thing turns. Under Section 54 sixteen boroughs have been constituted county boroughs. But in 1904 and again in 1907 this particular question of the pressure of modern and altered conditions came before the Courts, and both cases went to the House of Lords. They raised the question that the Clause of the Act which requires the adjustment of compensation would allow of compensation being paid for the rateable area of the county diminished by the incorporation of the county borugh. It was decided that the Clause as to equitable adjustment did not allow compensation to be paid. A Joint Select Committee, was moved for by the County
    2316
    Councils' Association with the result of which the County Councils' Association have expressed themselves entirely satisfied. They went into every question of compensation where county boroughs were cut out of the county. In their Report they did not recommend that any compensation should be paid in respect of an adjustment of rateable areas, but they said that in view of all the circumstances of modern legislation they thought that compensation should go as far as making provision for the adjustment of burden. Put roughly, it comes to this, that you should not adjust income but adjust outgoings.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The Joint Committee elected last year restored the practice under which adjustments were made between 1888 and 1903.
    Mr. BARLOW: The Select Committee carried the view of compensation a great deal further than anybody supposed it went under the Act of 1888, when the county boroughs were created. However that may be, the Joint Select Committee was moved for by the County Council's Association, and their Report has been accepted by the County Councils' Association. Therefore, I do not see how they can very well quarrel with the position taken up in that Report. I am not going into the details of the adjustments suggested, as they can be considered amply by the Committee upstairs. What is important for us to bear in mind is this that the adjustments suggested by the Joint Select Committee, and of which the County Councils' Association have approved, do figure in Part II. of the Schedule of this Bill. Therefore, the arrangement for adequately parcelling the burden as between the county and the county borough, and those adjustments as suggested in the Joint Select Committee's Report, form part of the arrangements for this Provisional Order. I do not think, after that fact, that the House can have any doubt that justice will be done between the parties. I quite accept the appeal that has been made to us to treat this matter in a broad spirit. After all, it has been pointed out the borough occupies land in the county, and you have to recollect that you have common ties of interest. I accept all that, but at the same time it must be borne in mind that the problems of borough administration and of county administration are different problems. I am not going to maintain the case for Cambridge, because I do not think it is a case for the consideration of this House, but the Gentlemen who

    2317
    put the case for unity of interests and administration before us are apt to put the case too high. Parliament itself has recognised over and over again that there is a difference of administrative problems for the borough and the country.
    Were we not told when the Insurance Bill was under discussion that the problem of the agricultural labourer from the point of view of insurance was quite different from that of the man in the town. The agricultural rating was in itself a recognition by Parliament that the problem of rating in the country and the town is different. Take again the question of education, Cambridge town deals with elementary education, but there is a joint authority on secondary education, so that the county comes into Cambridge for secondary but not elementary education. On that problem of education alone the best expert opinion is that the problem in the county and in the town is different. Therefore, while I accept to a certain extent the argument of community of interests. I think there is the countervailing argument that the administrative problem is different. When the boroughs have reached the point when under ordinary Parliamentary practice they are entitled to say, "We have reached a position of wealth and of administrative complications and of population such that under the ordinary procedure we are entitled to be our own county borough." Then if there are special circumstances, let the Committee deal with them. That is not a matter for the House.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think this discussion has been very discursive, and really too general. If we were discussing afresh the powers under the Act of 1888 I think the Debate would have been very material to the powers there contained, but what we ought to Debate is this, namely, the right of these three boroughs to apply for powers under the Act of 1888 to become county boroughs. We ought, as far as possible, endeavour to ascertain and to Debate whether they are entitled to apply for those powers or not. The hon. Member for the Middleton Division made a suggestion to which I do not think anyone, whether he represents a county borough or a county, ought to object. Every Committee ought most certainly to consider all Bills upon their merits, and they are not altogether influenced by the recommendations of the Local Government Board. Take the case of Cambridge or any other of these
    2318
    boroughs that are applying for powers to become county boroughs. They have had a very expensive local inquiry. Is it right, after that inquiry has been held at great cost, that this House should reject the Bill instead of sending it up to a Committee for consideration? We have representatives of the County Councils Association and other bodies here. I am a member of a county council, and I know that statements are made here as representing the county councils which the county councils have never really debated. It is the same with the municipal councils. These associations are more or less governed by officials, and the county councils as such do not debate the points represented here. The strongest argument urged to-night in favour of the application of the borough of Cambridge came from the Under-Secretary for India, who delivered a very eloquent speech. The hon. Gentleman stated that out of a rateable value of £717,000, Cambridge is represented by £364,000. What does that mean to anyone acquainted with local government life in a town? It means that under our system of rating Cambridge not only pays half the cost of her own main roads through the county rate, but by her rateable value she pays half the cost of the whole of the main roads of the county of Cambridge itself. That is the important factor. Any man who is a member of that council or a ratepayer of the town must feel aggrieved at being called upon to pay these large rates, in addition to what the ratepayers are called upon to pay for their local rates. There is no doubt that in the inquiry before the Local Government Board inspector, this fact was taken into consideration, and the inspector reported in favour of the power being given to the borough of Cambridge. We must consider each one of these cases upon its merits. If it had not been for the decision of the House of Lords with regard to the West Hartlepool case, the county council wouldnot have taken the action they are taking to-day. In the West Hartlepool case the county council made a claim for £30,000 for compensation for the loss of revenue in regard to main roads. There is this point to consider, that there was not a single main road 'within the borough of West Hartlepool. Because the county council failed to obtain that compensation the county council's association since then have been active opponents of these powers being granted to boroughs to become county boroughs. Each one of these cases ought to be taken upon its merits—a Bill should

    2319
    receive a Second Reading, and ought to go upstairs to allow of it being presented impartially to an impartial tribunal. I am quite certain that the Committee, whoever composes that Committee, will give all concerned a fair and attentive hearing.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The House has, now discussed for over two hours the various aspects of three of the districts that are named in the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 21) Bill. The Debate, if I may be allowed to say so, has been more friendly and harmonious than previous Debates on similar subjects, where disputes have occurred between the urban authorities and the county council. I note, as President of the Local Government Board, with great pleasure, that there is less friction to-day between the county councils and the urban authorities than there was two or three years ago. If both urban authorities and county councils will be well advised by one whose position compels him to be judicial and impartial between both—and there are times when I can say—
    "How happy could I he with either, Were Cother dear charmer away"—
    I would suggest that they should continue these friendly relationships. If they do not there is a prospect of county councils and urban authorities being alternately damaged in this House on Second Readings of Bills of this sort, for the opportunity will, in all likelihood, be used of giving transient expression to the views of the majority, on either side, that at the moment may have ascendency in the House. If that were to occur it would be very unfortunate, both for the urban authorities and for the county councils. The next point that emerges in the Bill—it was made by the hon. Member for Cambridge County, who represents the India Office in this House—to note is this, there is no suggestion that either in the matter of Cambridge. Carlisle, Luton, or Wakefield, the Local Government Board has shown either prejudice or partiality for or against. On the contrary, the lion. Member for Cambridge County was under the impression that we had not only been fair, but that we had been generous towards Cambridge county in this particular matter. The next point is the one raised by the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. It has been put, from different points of view. That is that the time has arrived when the Local Government Act of 1888
    2320
    might possibly be amended. If it is amended—and the county councils sometimes press that point—there is a possibility—if it is amended in the direction the county councils may desire—and the amending Bill came before this House, that the county councils would not gain by any Amendment. I would advise them to follow the example of Agag and to walk delicately in the matter of amendment of the Act of 1888, because 80 per cent. of the population of this country live in urban areas, and the reflex of that majority is, generally speaking, recorded in the representation of the House of Commons, and I would advise the county councils to proceed moderately and cautiously in any desire they may express for the amendment of the Act of 1888. The fourth point is one on which I have a right to lay considerable stress. I notice that the hon. Member who spoke last quoted facts and gave figures and details with regard to numbers that have no right, to be accepted by this House, from whatever side they are produced, in this controversy without careful consideration, because necessarily they must be ex parte, and figures and facts or alleged facts given should be tested by a proper tribunal that would be fair to both sides, both to the county council and to the urban authorities. These facts and figures ought to be-tested by searching examination, by cross-examination, by maps, plans, and figures and financial statements upon which justice could be done to one side or the other.
    The other point I have to deal with was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, and before I come to his question I might repeat with a little more emphasis what lie himself admitted was true. It would be unprecedented if the House of Commons were to throw out this Cambridge, Luton and Wakefield Bill on Second Reading. A Provisional Order Bill which deals with Cambridge, Luton, and Wakefield, has no right to be thrown out upon Second Reading. If it was, a precedent would be instituted that would cause grave dissatisfaction to county councils, and I am sure later on to urban authorities, for whatever their views may be, and they sometimes smart under the decisions of Select Committees, they have great faith in the Select Committees upstairs to do justice to both sides, and elementary justice will only be served if the House passes this Bill and sends it upstairs in

    2321
    the usual way, so that the facts can be examined. May I say that the facts upon which a decision should be taken are not before the House. They cannot be adequately put, either from want of time, or from prejudice and they cannot be challenged, and it is not the duty of the House to subject any Bill to that disability. It is also not a fact to say that the Local Government Board necessarily accept as an invariable rule that because a local authority assumes a population of 50,000 it is entitled on mere population alone without the facts and circumstances being considered to assume the status of a county borough. There are other facts that the Local Government Board has to consider and they consider them in many ways. A public inquiry has to be held, and it has been held in this case, at which all persons, bodies, and interests affected were heard. The Local Government Board have weighed the evidence and they think that a primaâ facie case has been made out for the constitution of a county borough by this particular Order, and if I may say so to the Under-Secretary for India the most competent tribunal to decide whether or not Cambridge should be made a county borough is, with all respect to the county, the borough of Cambridge itself. That borough has considerably more than the requisite population. It considers itself antiquated. its revenues, its expenditure, its relation to the county, and many other circumstances warrants it in applying to the Local Government Board to be made a county borough. And the Local Government Board, without prejudice or partiality, accepted their view of the case;
    Provisional Order Bill has been drafted, is before the House, and we ask the House to give it a Second Reading. We do so because the House is an unfit tribunal to decide this point, and a Committee alone can do it. In answer to the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins), I may say that I think the situation has changed rather favourably to the county councils during the last few years. I think the Joint Committee of both Houses and the Resolution and Report which they have adopted removes some of the hardships which the county councils said they laboured under before the Joint Committee met. We have introduced a Bill to give legislative effect to the decisions of the Joint Committee, and although that Bill may not be passed this Session, their decisions will be in-
    2322
    corporated in a Provisional Order before the Committee finally decides the Bill, and before the Third Reading is taken. All the points raised by the opponents of Cambridge being a county borough will be taken into consideration, and I have not the least doubt that justice will be done to all the parties concerned by the Committee upstairs.
    My last point is the appeal made by the hon. Member for Middleton. I think the House will be well advised to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I urge the House to pass the Instruction put down in the name of three or four Members on both sides. I believe that whatever exceptional circumstances there may be in the Cambridge county case, they will be met if this Instruction is passed. The hon. Member for Middleton has asked me whether I am prepared at this moment, as. President of the Local Government Board, to reiterate what the Prime Minister said, both in his letter and the communication which embodied the Prime Minister's view. I am quite willing and agreeable to do that and bring the question before the Committee. It seems to me that there is one thing left for the House to do, and that is to give this Bill a Second Reading. If there is one reason why this course should be adopted, it is that put forward by the chairman of the Cambridge County Council himself, who said:—
    "I inn inclined to think that the Local Government Board is right, that the matter being a very large one, put forward by a very responsible and important body, the town council of the borough of Cambridge it ought to go to Parliament."
    We say "ditto" to the chairman of the County Council of Cambridge, and we think the matter ought to go further. Parliament is not so competent to decide these matters in all the circumstances as a Select Committee, and for these reasons I suggest that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading. I also urge the House to accept the Instruction, and if that is done all the circumstances of the Cambridge claim will be brought before the Committee, and I am satisfied that justice will be done to all parties. I commend this course to the House.
    Mr. BECK: After the speech of my right hon. Friend, I shall have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee particularly to consider the probable effect that the confirmation of each Provisional Order included in the Bill would have on the capacity, whether financial or otherwise, of each county council affected to continue efficiently county council administration in the residue of the county area."—(Sir Ryland Adkins.]

    SUPPLY.— [THIRTEENTII ALLOTTED DAY.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir F. BANBURY in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
    Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to 'Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,194,130, be granted to His Majesty, to, complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department." [Note.—£850,000 has been voted on account.]
    Which Amendment was, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100.—[Mr. R. Gwynne.]
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,194,030 be granted for the said service." Debate resumed.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech this afternoon was quite fair to my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) who opened the Debate on the main Vote this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say about the Land Union, an institution for which it is very obvious he has no very great affection, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to hear the other side. It is all very well for him to speak about the Land Union and about my hon. and gallant Friend, and to resent, as no doubt he does, the work that they have been doing in the past two or three years in watching with a very careful eye, not only the right Iron. Gentleman's own action with regard to the Budget, but also the action of his administrators, of the Inland Revenue, and indeed of the Law Courts and everybody else with regard to these valuations and
    2324
    the collection of these taxes. Let the right hon. Gentleman ask those who have been advised by the Land Union in this matter, and whose interests have been cared for by them in a very difficult situation, and he will perhaps realise that there are two sides to the question, and that, however much he may feel aggrieved by certain remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend or by certain things he has done, there are others who appreciate very much the work he and the Land Union have done and the care they have taken. It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to come down here and make the sort of speech he made this afternoon under the impression that he has really answered my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman is an adept at producing and dragging a red herring across any path. There is no one more able to do that, and no one more interesting in the doing of it than the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not really influence people as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. We see through it quite well. When the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer a direct challenge, he generally answers something else. He sets up a man of straw and knocks him down with great effect; but after all it was not a man of straw that was set up here. There are an enormous number of objections being raised. I have ever so many objections to valuations in which I am concerned, and I think I know a little more about these matters than those who make the valuations. There are a number of points which may be the subject of appeal on my part, and there are thousands in the same position. The Gentlemen who have to deal with these matters are very nice. I have no fault to find with those with whom I have come into contact. They meet me perfectly reasonably.
    With regard to a recent. decision in the House of Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question I put to him, said he did not see why the Government should pay the costs of that case. I have a report of that case as dealt with by the Referee and by the Valuation Court. The Valuation Court consisted of three very capable judges, men of great experience. But they made an absurd mistake in thinking—and it was a very natural mistake—that the word" value" in the Budget means "value" as understood in a dictionary. The "value" of the Budget has no analogy at all to "value" in common life. The Budget "value" is a mere abstraction:

    2325
    it is nothing that exists in Heaven or on, earth; it is something created by the right hon. Gentleman, and the minus value which must arise in certain cases is the natural result of the system of taxation defined by the Budget. Those of us who dealt with it from week to week and month to month realised that fact long ago. The judges, thinking the word "value" meant "value" as ordinarily understood took the view which was overruled by the House of Lords—as I think quite rightly. Lord Johnston—one of our most experienced judges, said the Court was bound to consider whether it was the real intention of the Statute that a minus site value should be possible, and he added that he had come to the conclusion there was no foundation for the contention of the Government that the question must not be considered in accordance with ordinary business methods. But there are no ordinary business methods in connection with this matter. It is a question of finding and fixing an increment value and that has nothing to do with ordinary business methods. The Lord Chancellor went on to say that the issue could not be determined by the wording of one Section, but that the provisions must be taken as a whole; it was a tax intended to raise revenue by the assessment of increased value in land. That is of course where the judges went wrong. Where the Referee says it is impossible to have a minus value, and Where you have a Court composed of three competent judges saying the same thing, and the House of Lords over-ruling that decision in a test case governing thousands of other cases it surely is only reasonable, if the Act is so ambiguous as it turned out to be in this matter, that the Treasury should pay the costs of the action instituted to determine how valuations are to be made.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is going to happen with regard to the valuations made before this judgment was given, and what is going to happen with regard to overpayments which have been exacted from many people who have paid Increment Duty. Obviously you cannot give a 10 per cent, deduction off a minus quantity. The dictum of one of the judges was that 10 per cent. was to be taken off the full site value. It was not so done; therefore in every case where a deduction of 10 per cent has not been taken off the full site value, the subject has been overcharged. The right hon. Gentle-
    2326
    man has been asked what he is going to do about that, but no one has ever yet heard an answer from him. He again referred, and always does refer when these matters arise, to the fact that we did not jump at his offer to appoint a committee of experts to consider whether the administration of this Act is satisfactory or according to the terms of the Statute. We have told the right hon. Gentleman over and over again that that is not our difficulty or our point against him. I am quite certain that the Act is being administered in the best possible way by those responsible for it, but they are administering a very complicated Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is all very well for the hon. Baronet to say so. He has never said anything to the contrary, so far as I know. That was not the view of those who were attacking the administration of the Act. On the contrary, they used very strong words about the administration. They went as far as to say that if this was an ordinary business these men would have been sent to prison. It was an attack upon the administration, and a charge that they undervalued under instructions.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I hardly think that is the exact position. No doubt these charges were made off and on.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear!
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There is no doubt that this Act, as the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree, is an extremely difficult one to administer. It is most complicated. There is no Act like it in any kingdom under the sun, and there was never an Act so little understood by its authors or by those who fought it during the many months we fought it. We are beginning to understand it a little better now. Our point is this: the administration may be right or wrong. There may be flaws here and there. An expert Committee may find them out. They may he serious or trifling. What we want, and what we have always asked for is that the right hon. Gentleman will let us have a Committee to see whether or not the values you are taking are true values. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has always refused to give us.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEdissented.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will he give it to us now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet says I have refused to give them that. On the contrary, I stated distinctly that I was prepared to give one or the other Committee, but I wanted to know which it was they wanted; whether it was a Committee to consider whether the Act as it stands is being properly administered, or a committee to consider whether the principles ought to be altered. If they wanted the former, I am prepared to have a Committee of experts, but if the latter, I will not have a Committee of experts, but a different committee. I do not care which it is, and I stand by my offer now.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: This is the first time I have understood that to be the case. I have taken a part in the negotiations behind the scenes, not with the right hon. Gentleman, and have had submitted to me once or twice the reference which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give, and I always advised my hon. Friends never to accept anything from him at all, unless the Committee he appoints is to have the right to say whether these values are true values or whether they are not. Negotiations have always broken down on that point. If, however, he says he will give us an alternative Committee, either a Committee to consider whether the Act is being administered according to its provisions or whether the values being found under the Act are true values, something that the word "value" means, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) will reconsider his position and will let the right hon. Gentleman know whether or not he accepts the alternative. But it is the first time I have ever understood him to make that offer. But everyone knows these values are not true values. A minus value is an impossibility. There must be a positive value. A minus value merely arises from the fact that there is a heavy burden on a particular piece of land which reduces the datum point to a point below its value. That is why the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) challenged the statement of my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) on the new theory of the Land Taxers on the opposite side, and hon. Members have given up all idea of trying to place rating upon assessable site value and desire now to put it on full site value.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I do not think the hon. Baronet could mention any hon.
    2328
    Member on this side who ever suggested rating the assessable site value.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Assessable site value is a new term according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What the hon. Member and others have always said, is that they wanted to rate the bare land value irrespective of all improvements upon it. The bare land value is your assessable value, and in many cases in Scotland it is less than nothing.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Assessable site value is a technical word under the Finance Act. If the hon. Baronet implies something else, I would suggest his using another term.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Of course it is a. technical word. Everything under the Finance Act is a technical word, and there is no valuation in it at all. They are a concoction of the right hon. Gentleman. They are an invention of the evil one. The hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) did not know that the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) introduced a measure the other day, the introduction of which my hon. Friend voted for, and that measure proposed, not to place rating upon bare land value, but upon full site value, because these Gentlemen thought they knew all about it before they found out that bare land value offered nothing to rate upon. That disposes, at all events, of the challenge that I was not correct in saying that was a new development on the other side. I suppose it is no good my making an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position in regard to the minus value scheme. I do not know why he is so determined to refuse any sort of kind, generous treatment to the unfortunate person whose case is going to govern thousands of others in Scotland. I still have a sort of faint hope that the right hon. Gentleman, on thinking it over, will think it is one of those cases of peculiar circumstances which deserves special treatment, and which ought to receive at his hands fairly generous consideration. After all, it has settled for him a most important principle, one which was obviously going to give very great difficulty in Scotland, and create a good deal of trouble to the Treasury and to the land valuation officials, and, if for no other reason than that it has got them and him out of a very great difficulty, he ought to see his way to pay the very small amount of money which this involves.
    It being Eleven o'clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (7th July).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    BERKSHIRE FARMERS' LEAGUE.
    Motion made and Question proposed," That this House do now adjourn "—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Major HENDERSON: I desire to call attention to a matter arising out of the question which I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-day and a question which I asked on the 18th of last month in respect of prosecutions undertaken by the National Insurance Commissioners against members of the Berkshire Farmers' League. I am not going to enter into the whole of the circumstances attending the genesis of the trouble that has arisen except to say that, rightly or wrongly, farmers who are members of this league thought fit for the first two quarters after the Insurance Act came into operation not to comply with the provisions of the Act with reference to the stamping of the insurance cards of persons employed by them. According to law they were wrong, but they had right on their side according to their own views as to their interests and what they thought were the interests of those they employed. Matters went on up to the 1st January this year, when the inspector, Mr. Curtis Bennett, on behalf of the Insurance Commissioners, met the committee of the Berks and adjoining Counties Farmers' Defence League at Oxford.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Major HENDERSON: The secretary of the league, Mr. Bayliss attended the meeting, which took place in the Clarence Hotel, Oxford, and with him were two of the best known farmers in that part of the country. I have no reason to doubt the impression which was left on their minds
    2330
    as the result of this meeting, that if they worked the Act forward from the 15th January this year and made themselves responsible for any benefits which would accrue to their employés under the Act should they fall sick during the time, the rest of the year, no prosecutions would be undertaken. I am inclined to believe that that is the fact, because at the prosecution that took place last week at Witney, Mr. Curtis Bennett, in the witness-box, was asked:—
    "It was a condition that, in the event of the league coining into line and working the Act in the third quarter, they would not initiate the proceedings for the payment of arrears unless there were specific cases of complaint."
    The members of the league kept loyally to this agreement they came to on 1st January. They issued a notice to their members on 13th January as to the agreement, and they have repudiated any members who have failed to comply 'with the memorandum which they then sent out. It was not until the 18th January that Insurance Commissioners issued a notice that they did not know of this or of any bargain made on their behalf, or of the fact of the agreement in the case before Mr. Curtis Bennett and the Committee of the Defence League. I am inclined to think that this view was held by Mr. Curtis Bennett as late as 5th March this year, because one of the members of the committee, who was a witness and was present when the agreement was come to, was interviewed by Mr. Curtis Bennett on the question of some men who had left his employment. This was a Mr. Adams, who is a very large farmer in the western part of Berkshire, and employs a very large number of men. In his evidence, given in the Witney prosecution, he said:—
    "Mr. Curtis Bennett came to him with a list of names and they went over three or four men on the list that had left his employment, and Mr. Curtis Bennett asked him as a favour to stamp their cards, as it made a difference to their benefits. The inspector ticked off their names, and said that if they paid their benefits they would hear no more about them."
    It was even in Mr. Curtis Bennett's mind so late as the 5th March of this year; he, at any rate, was under the impression that the Commissioners had fallen in with the agreement he had drawn up, and that no prosecution would take place. This was an agreement drawn up between the committee and the inspector. On that the deputy of the Defence League had advised
    that they should work it. It was not brought up in writing, but there was a distinct understanding between the committee and the league, and no one can

    2331
    doubt their integrity at all. They were not men who would make a false statement all through. Those who have attended the committee—I have seen them myself on many occasions—they have given evidence to the same effect. No doubt when they came away from the meeting on the 1st January, after being interviewed by Mr. Curtis Bennett, for whom they entertained a great respect, they realised that he was working in their interests as well as in the interests of the Insurance Act, and that he was endeavouring to make as good a bargain as possible. That is the impression which they always left on my mind, that they had discussed it with Mr. Curtis Bennett. In respect of the prosecutions, which were not taken prior to the 15th January, they consider that they have just reason. There is some misunderstanding evidently, because the right hon. Gentleman says Mr. Curtis Bennett was not empowered to make this agreement or to make any agreement to exempt persons from complying with the provisions of the Act. That may be the fact, but still Mr. Curtis Bennett, who is an inspector of Insurance Commissioners, did, if I may say so, as the servant of the Commissioners, meet this body of men, and, after consultation with them, came to sonic form of agreement whereby the Act would be worked forward from 15th January. Undoubtedly if that meeting had not taken place, and if the committee had not advised their members to work the Act from 15th January, in my opinion, and I think I know a very large number of members of the league, and although I have not advocated the action which they took from the outset, but personally, as a matter of fact, advised them to the contrary altogether and to work the Act, at the same time I do feel they are suffering under an injustice to-day, and I do think something should he done in order to show them that either Mr. Curtis Bennett was to blame and not themselves. Also I may say that no person in their employment is suffering any loss for their cards not having been stamped, because they are paying full benefits without charging anything for maintenance, as they would under the Act have paid nothing for those benefits. Now those farmers are working the Act according to law, and I do think it is very desirable they should be placed in a position of understanding where they are. If the Insurance Commissioners are
    2332
    going to repudiate the agreement or understanding which was come to, then I am afraid they will not place trust in the Insurance Commissioners in future, and I can only foresee considerable trouble in the district. It is in order to avoid that trouble that I am now asking the Financial Secretary to hold out some hope to those men that something may be done to clear up the position, and, if possible, to place the action of. Mr. Curtis Bennett in some form so that the undertaking which was then made on behalf of the Commissioners should be carried into effect.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The moderation and evident sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken prevents me saying a good deal which I might say, but I must say this, I agree he has taken every step he could by peaceful persuasion to make this particular group come into the Insurance Act and work the Act. But if he asks me to have any sympathy with that Association because they deliberately set themselves by criminal conspiracy to defy the law, and in the hope to get them out of obligations made under the law, I should have no sympathy with them in the first place, and I would de nothing to get them out of the consequences. Here is an organisation of prosperous farmers who from 15th July set themselves deliberately, knowing what it was they were doing, to break the law of the land. It was not poor people. The poor employers paid in the East End, while these rich prosperous farmers resisted the Act, and for a long time did not pay. Now the hon. Gentleman asks if I can let them off paying what they ought to have paid for six months, in order that there may be peace and harmony. What is the position of the men who paid from 15th July. What is the biggest complaint made over the country where this sort of action is being taken. Law abiding citizens Conservatives as well as Liberals, even in this district, refused to join this absurd, and I am not sure criminal conspiracy against the law, and paid from the 15th July, and their employes are receiving from the 15th January maternity and sickness benefits as a result. These people said, "It is all right. don't you pay. What fools you are to pay for these first two Quarters. Either the Act will he repealed soon, or we shall get out of paying for these first two quarters." Nothing has caused more disturbance in the country districts than the

    2333
    fact that these people are now saying to the law abiding population, "You see, we did not pay for the first, two quarters; you have been fools enough to do so, but we have got out of it all. That is what can be done if you are good Conservatives."
    Major HENDERSON: I must protest against that.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Or "that is what you can do if you have sufficient faith in Conservative statements that the Act will be repealed in a short space of time."
    Sir W. ANSON: That is really most unfair.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me quite unnecessary that the right hon. Gentleman should have dragged in that statement. The hon. Member who brought forward the question did not bring it forward in any party spirit at all. [HON.
    MEMBERS: Withdraw."]
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If you, Mr. Speaker, think I am out of order, I will gladly withdraw, but as a result of considerable examination of this subject, I think it is largely a question of party politics.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It was a most provocative statement, considering the very moderate speech made by the hon. Member who raised the subject. It was totally uncalled for and unnecessary. [HON MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not been asked to withdraw, and I shall not withdraw. If Mr. Speaker advises me to withdraw, I will do so with the greatest pleasure in the world.
    Sir. W. ANSON: I understood that you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was most provocative and uncalled for. In these circumstances I should have thought that it would have been common propriety to withdraw the statement.
    Mr. SPEAKER:It was not unparliamentary, and therefore I did not ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw.
    MR. MASTERMAN: I would gladly with draw if you invited me to do so. Now I come to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman. He very rightly stated, and I thank him for it, that there was a misunderstanding between one of our inspectors and these people. I do not know whose fault that misunderstanding was. Of necessity I must take the opinion of my
    2334
    inspector, who I believe is a thoroughly, reliable person. There were confidential: conversations between various members of this resisters' league and the inspector. It is very difficult, after confidential conversations, unless you have something in writing, to be sure which side is entirely right. I am assured by the inspector that he never in any circumstances gave any countenance to any idea of anything that was illegal being passed over as legal in. this matter. I must confess that, though. I have the utmost admiration for this inspector and his work, I doubt if it was altogether wise of him to go, into negotiation with this society in view of what subsequently occurred. His duty was to get everyone to obey the Act. Na doubt he thought that he would be able to get everyone by peaceful persuasion to: obey the Act, and he has done considerable work in that direction. It was not only impossible for him—he declares he never said it—it was quite impossible for him to promise in the name of anybody in the world that a definite legal obligation laid upon persons to pay from the 15th July to. 13th January, 7d. per week in respect of insurance should be abrogated, and that those persons should commence to pay, and should be allowed to do so from 13th January, abandoning six months of contributions, during which period the friendly societies to which these members belong receive no money at all, while other people who are obeying the law are paying the full contributions. I cannot go behind that, nor can I help in the matter in any possible way. I think those persons ought to have paid from the beginning. I am glad to hear that the hon. Member (Major Henderson) has exercised what influence he possesses to persuade them to pay from the beginning. I cannot have much sympathy with the persons who talk about agreements made afterwards, and who have not paid from the beginning. I consider their action was unworthy. So far as I can, whether these persons like it or dislike it so far as I can by control over the action of the Commons, I shall make these persons pay just like ordinary persons, in order that the friendly societies may receive the full amount, and that the labourers shall receive the full amount too. Never at any time or with any circumstances has any notice ever gone out from the Commissioners, saying that the law would be suspended. It would be a very grave matter if the Commissioners did any such thing, and would be-

    2335
    a reason for the impeachment of the Commission before this House. That is the answer that I give the hon. Member. I have a conflict of evidence, arising from a confidential statement, between three members of this active resistance league, and my own inspector. I believe my own inspector. Whatever happened at that meeting there is not the slightest doubt that within two days every one in that district was informed individually, after the answer had been given, that no such compact had been entered into and that these particular farmers had to obey the law like hundreds and thousands of farmers who had paid in other parts of the country. They cannot say they have been demnified by any sort of agreement whatever. They were not told so, some are paying, those who did not pay will have to pay. There the matter stands so far as the Insurance Commissioners are concerned. I might before I sit down express my regret to the hon. Gentleman -opposite if I was unnnecessarily provocative in my personal allusion. I did not want to provoke feeling or make any imputation. I really wanted to go through the case as it stood.
    Major HENDERSON: It is not a political organisation.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will not go into that. I have only to express my regret and to say that I am very sorry that this misunderstanding has arisen. I hope the hon. Gentleman will continue to use his influence from his side, as I shall con-
    2336
    tinue to use my influence from my side, to make these people conform to the law, just as the hundreds and thousands of other employers.
    Mr. BOOTH: I want to say that from the point of view of the approved societies this would destroy the whole foundation of their business and reserve funds. The fact that no immediate benefit is given is a most absurd statement to make. I am not surprised that Conservative Members get up and run away. The reserves have got to see these men through until they are seventy years of age. If the contributions are not paid in the earlier years the society cannot take them in. That groups of law breakers in Oxfordshire take up this stand ought to be condemned by every supporter of law and order in this House. It is a most disgraceful proceeding. They ought not only t) be heavily fined, but they ought to be made to smart. Employers of labour, including myself and others, have paid for our workpeople, and to say that these agricultural labourers are to be placed at the mercy of employers of this description for the rest of their lives is a most monstrous proceeding, and is deserving of nothing but the most vigorous condemnation that can be passed upon it by this loyal House of Commons.
    It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (STOPPAGES FROM WAGES).
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (STOPPAGES FROM WAGES).
  Mr. F. NOEL CURT is BENNETT.
  Mr. F. NOEL CURT is BENNETT.
  Customs Officers (Hull).
  Customs Officers (Hull).
  Land Valuation Department.
  Land Valuation Department.
  Estate Duty.
  Estate Duty.
  Appellate Judges.
  Appellate Judges.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Bryncoch. Non-Provided School, Glamorgan.
  Bryncoch. Non-Provided School, Glamorgan.
  Removal of Prisoners (Fares).
  Removal of Prisoners (Fares).
  Board of Agriculture Staff.
  Board of Agriculture Staff.
  Registration of Deaths.
  Registration of Deaths.
  Committee on Boats and Davits.
  Committee on Boats and Davits.
  Foreign Office (Retiring Age).
  Foreign Office (Retiring Age).
  Lewisham Infirmary (Medical Superintendent).
  Lewisham Infirmary (Medical Superintendent).
  Delivery of Letters (Teiveclogher, County Tyrone).
  Delivery of Letters (Teiveclogher, County Tyrone).
  Regent's Park.
  Regent's Park.
  Appeal Cases.
  Appeal Cases.

Preamble
The LORD FITZMAURICE—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Westminster Hospital.

Blyth and Cowpen Gas.

Heathfield and District Water.

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Irvine Burgh—(Substituted Bill).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

IRVINE BURGH BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

WATNEY, COMBE, REID AND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ASCOT AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
WEST BROMWICH 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 clay of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a: Bills read 2aaccordingly.

CONYNGHAM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]
GOMM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MAC COLL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

CAROLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
DOONER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copies of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the cases: Ordered to he communicated with a request that they may be returned.

ASCOT AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; (viz.),

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Latymer,

L. Dinevor,

L. Welby,

L. Desart (E. Desart) (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Dundee Boundaries Bill and other Bills do form a Select Committee for the consideration of the Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to he heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Falkland be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Monteagle (M.Sligo); read, and agreed to.

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading is designed to amend the procedure under the Bastardy Acts with a view to render those Acts more effective in securing payments under affiliation orders. Before going into the provisions of the Bill I should like to explain how it was that I came to take up this subject. I hope your Lordships will not be frightened when I begin to give my reasons that I am going to make a speech in favour of votes for women. Although my taking up of this subject is somewhat allied to that propaganda, I will relieve your Lordships by telling you that I have no sympathy with the movement. The fact is that about two years ago an active campaign was started in our part of Gloucestershire by various associations approving of votes for women. Meetings were held all over the county, and even the cottages were invaded by the missionaries of these organisations. The burden of all their speeches was that women were not sufficiently represented in Parliament and would not be until they had the vote. The next step was that the anti-suffragists held a meeting, at which I was asked to take the chair. I tried, in my opening remarks, to refute the argument that women were not represented in Parliament, and I pointed out that if there was any real grievance which could be removed by an Act, Members of Parliament, if proper representations were made to
752
them, would be only too glad to introduce a measure to remedy that grievance. I further said that if proper representations were made to me personally I would do my best to bring in a Bill dealing with the matter, provided that I agreed with the proposals. Needless to say, no representations at all were made to me.
I then thought that I had better look round myself and see whether there were any grievances under which women suffered which could not be put an end to by Act of Parliament. I had facilities in the matter, and was able to employ a man used to interviewing people. He saw some of the leaders of this movement, and drew up a report which I have in my possession. It is a very interesting report from their point of view, but I will not trouble your Lordships by reading anything from it. I will merely say that there were four heads on which these ladies wanted legislation. Two of them I considered quite unsuitable for legislation; the third was one of which I could not approve, and even if legislation was brought in I could not support it; but the fourth was the subject of affiliation orders, and that appeared to me to be a matter which might be very usefully taken up. I therefore made inquiries with the object of drawing up a Bill, but I soon found that a Bill had already been introduced in another place by Captain Jessel and had been read a first time and printed. The Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading this evening is practically the same Bill. It is Captain Jessel's Bill with the exception of one or two amendments, to which he agrees. Captain Jessel has devoted a great amount of trouble to the drawing up of this Bill, and if it should be fortunate enough to pass into law it is to him and his friends that every credit must be given. I have said a good deal by way of introduction. I will now come to the provisions of the Bill, an explanation of which will be found in the Memorandum prefaced to the Bill.
I cannot pretend that this Bill carries out the whole of the recommendations which were made by the Select Committee which sat in 1909. To carry out those recommendations would entail a very large Bill. At the same time this Bill will carry out two of their recommendations—namely, the one on page 3 in which they recommend that money paid under a bastardy order

753
by a putative father to the mother of an illegitimate child should be paid through the agency of a third person, and the recommendation lower down that the process should be facilitated by which mothers, guardians, and other persons may recover from the male parent the expenses which they have incurred in connection with the birth or maintenance of the child.
The question may be asked whether this Bill is really needed. I say distinctly that it is, because the law in this matter is very defective. An unmarried woman having secured an affiliation order has to collect the money herself weekly, and if the man fails to pay the only remedy she has is to bring him up a second time before the justices. And it is found in practice that affiliation orders frequently become ineffective because of the unwillingness or inability of the mother to make continual appearances before the magistrates. But even in the cases where the mother does bring the man again before the Court the justices have no power to make him pay; the only means they have of punishment is to send him to prison. That course fails because the woman is thus left still more destitute, much to the detriment of the health of the child. I submit therefore that in many cases the law becomes a dead letter.
I am not going to harrow the feelings of your Lordships by dreadful accounts of poor young mothers who stand waiting outside factory gates on pay day in order to collect the half-crown, or whatever it may be, due to them. I could bring forward many instances. It is, however, unnecessary to do so, as I am sure your Lordships will be able to consider the matter from a purely logical standpoint. I should wish first to convince your Lordships of the justice of the Bill. In the first place I may say that it inflicts no injustice upon men. Affiliation orders are not easily obtained. Magistrates are always most careful before an affiliation order is granted, and if there is any flaw in the evidence the decision generally goes against the woman. Out of 139 cases reported in 1912, not counting those which had been settled out of Court, only 24 affiliation orders were granted. Statistics as to non-payment under the present law are very difficult to get at, but it is well
754
known that payments under affiliation orders tend to decrease and become very irregular and gradually cease altogether. The only figures that I can give are these. Of eleven cases that have been brought to my notice where men were paying money regularly under affiliation orders up to last February, five have already either discontinued to make the payments or have made them so irregularly and of such varying amounts that one can only suspect that the payments will very soon entirely cease.
I do not think I need dilate on the procedure of the Courts, because nearly all your Lordships are justices of the peace and will have had experience of the great difficulties which exist in securing affiliation orders. There is, in the first place, the difficulty of providing the money necessary to secure 'the issue of the summons, and when the summons has been issued very likely the man has already changed his address or left the country. Even if the necessary money should be provided for the mother through some charitable person or institution and she obtains an affiliation order, there is no machinery at present for enforcing the payments under the order. The question arises how can payment be enforced? It is obvious that if the man is asked by the woman herself to pay the money he would not be nearly so likely to agree to do so as if the demand was made by a policeman or some officer of the Court. Therefore I venture to think that the proposal in this Bill that there shall be appointed for each magistrate's Court an officer of the Court (who may be either an officer specially appointed for the purpose or an existing officer of the Court) to act as collecting officer of the payments under an affiliation order, and to pass them on to the mother or to such other person as is entitled under the order to receive them, will be a really effective remedy in this case.
Power is also proposed to be given to magistrates to make an order attaching a weekly sum out of the salary or wages of any man upon whom an affiliation order has been made, and requiring an employer, after notice, to make the deductions specified and send the money by registered post to the collecting officer or other person named in the affiliation attachment order. This clause, I am afraid, may

755
receive some criticism. It is said that possibly the mere fact that an attachment order has been made against a man will lead to his employer discontinuing to employ him. I hope, however, that your Lordships will not take this view. If the man had from the first acknowledged his responsibility and had made some payment for the upkeep of his child, as he should have done, no affiliation order would have been necessary; so that if a man is suffering under an attachment order the fault rests entirely with him for not having originally carried out his responsibilities.
I do not think I need trouble your Lordships any further in explaining this Bill. I am confident that you will see in it a very useful measure, and one which will relieve the burden felt so severely by these poor women when they are in distress. Only last Monday your Lordships had before you a small and useful Bill which received the unanimous approval of both sides of the House and was promised the benevolent attention of His Majesty's Government. I hope that this Bill may be received in the same way. For if these two Bills are eventually added to the Statute Book they will he an addition to the list of useful measures which His Majesty's Government have passed during the present year. And even if one or two Bills which may come before your Lordships' House later in the session should fail to pass this House, I think the mere passing of this Bill and the Money-lenders Bill will prove that the intentions of this House are good and that your Lordships are always ready to legislate for any really true and just cause. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I rise with very real diffidence to address your Lordships because the time in which I have been a member of your Lordships' House is very short, and the more so because I know that I cannot speak with the knowledge of one whose remarks would have been very much more worthy of your Lordships' attention than any of mine. But the Royal Commission of which I had the honour to be secretary, had, among other questions which excited more attention, to consider questions very similar
756
to those dealt with in the noble Earl's Bill, and I therefore venture to think that there are some points which I can usefully bring to your Lordships' attention. In doing so I most earnestly ask for the indulgence which your Lordships so generously extend to those who are addressing you for the first time.
The Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes had to consider the question of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, and, as your Lordships know, by Section 9 of that Act orders under that Act are enforced in exactly the same manner as affiliation orders. During the course of that inquiry many suggestions were made for the purpose of improving the enforcement of payments under those orders, and among them was a suggestion exactly similar to that contained in Clause 2 of the Bill now before your Lordships. But there was this substantial objection made by many of the witnesses at that inquiry, that if such a course were adopted the employee's employment might be jeopardised since the employer in such cases might take the view that it was undesirable to retain in his service an employee in respect of whose wages it would be necessary that he should deal in the manner indicated, with the result that the very object of the provision would be itself defeated by the man losing his employment. Incidentally I might mention that there would be no such objection to a provision similar to that contained in the Children Act, 1908, Section 75 (11), which deals with pensions or incomes, and I venture to suggest that the noble Earl might consider whether he would not include it in this Bill at a later stage.
As a result of the suggested objection, I, on behalf of the Commissioners, wrote to a number of corporations and to the secretaries of many large trade organisations on the subject, and I think it would be useful if I read the list of trades to your Lordships as indicating that the inquiry was of as extensive a character as one could reasonably make. Those trades were the National Federation of Building Trades, the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, the Mining Association of Great Britain, the Cleveland Mine-Owners' Association, the North of England Iron and Steel Manufacturers' Association, the Engineering Employers' Federation, the Shipbuilding Employers'

757
Federation, the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Association, the North and North-East Lancashire Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association, the Huddersfield and District Woollen Manufacturers' Association, the Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland, the National Federation of Merchant Tailors, the Shipping Federation, the Master Printers and Allied Trades Association, the Staffordshire Potteries Manufacturers' Association, and the National Association of Master Bakers and Confectioners of Great Britain and Ireland.
The result of the letters received in reply to my circular, which will be found set out in Appendix xxix of the Volume containing the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence of the Royal Commission to which I have referred, was to show that, whilst some employers of labour would favour a suggestion such as is contained in Clause 2 of this Bill in respect of orders under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, compulsion would undoubtedly lead in a large number of cases to the employee's employment being jeopardised and probably to his dismissal. But it would appear from some of the letters received that certain of the employers of labour written to would be quite prepared to adopt the course suggested. I therefore venture to think that it might be wiser, rather than make the provision compulsory, to give a power, which does not now exist and which I believe is prohibited by Statute, to employers, where they signify their assent, to deal with wages in the manner indicated without going as far as to make it entirely compulsory.
There are two other smaller points which I think I might usefully bring before your Lordships, without going into the wider question of whether under the warrants for these orders it is necessary to bring up to the district where the orders are made the person against whom the order is made—under the Debtors Act this is not necessary—and it might be that under procedure such as this it might not be necessary; or the question of fees, as to which there is considerable diversity of practice, though the Home Office endeavoured to secure uniformity by the adoption of a model clause. There is one suggestion in the Report of the Bastardy
758
Committee which might, I venture to suggest, be usefully incorporated in the Bill now before your Lordships' House. The position at present with regard to the execution of warrants is that the Police are bound to execute warrants in their own district without the expense being previously paid; they may execute warrants outside the district and charge the expense to the Police Fund, but it is not by any means clear that they must do so. For instance, if a warrant was issued from Carlisle—I take that as an illustration—the Police of that city might execute it on a man in Bristol without previously requiring that the expenses should be paid. On the other hand, if a warrant was issued from Bristol and the man was in Carlisle, it might be that the Bristol Police would require the expenses to be paid before they would execute the warrant. I therefore venture to suggest, for the consideration of your Lordships' House and of the noble Earl, whether it might not be possible in the present Bill to do that which is recommended in the latter part of Paragraph 11 of the Bastardy Committee's Report—namely, make it clear that the Police are bound to enforce warrants of distress and committal outside their district without requiring the previous payment of costs.
The last point to which I wish to refer is with regard to the question of the selected officer to do the collection. The noble Earl's Bill does not contain any definition, and it may be that that is unintentional. But there is in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, Section 38, a provision indicating persons who might be suitable to perform the work in question—namely, a superintendent or inspector of Police, or other officer of equal or superior rank or in charge of a Police-station—and it might be that those would be the sort of persons that the Court would contemplate as being their officers for the purpose of this Bill. But I would suggest whether there might not be included a person who I would not, I think, under any interpretation of the word be an officer of the Court but who would be a very useful person for carrying out this class of work—the Police-court missionary or probation officer attached to the Court. I apologise for occupying so much of your Lordships' time, but I ventured to think that some of these considerations might be of use to the House.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: I am sure your Lordships would wish me, at the outset, to congratulate the noble Lord who has just addressed us this afternoon for the first time, and to express the hope that we may have the advantage of his advice on many future occasions. As regards the Bill now before your Lordships, this matter was dealt with by a Select Committee in the year 1909, and that Committee made numerous recommendations. The noble Earl in this Bill has only, as far as I understand, adopted two of those suggestions—the suggestion that money under an affiliation order should be paid through a third person, and the suggestion that power should be given to enforce payment by attaching a portion of the defendant's salary or wages. Obviously the Government would naturally wish that the Bill had been more comprehensive. The Government think it is a pity to deal with these matters in a piecemeal manner, especially as the Select Committee went fully into the whole subject and dealt with it thoroughly.
As regard the actual position which the Government take up with regard to this Bill, I may say that we think its object is excellent in all respects. We agree with the proposal that payment under an affiliation order should be made through a third person, and that the third person should be an officer of the Court. Lord Gorell suggested the Court missionary or the probation officer, but the view of the Home Office is that this duty would be much better carried out by an officer of the Court. In this respect it may interest your Lordships if I mention the procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, because if this Bill passes the procedure will be nearly on all fours with that under the Act to which I am referring. The Home Secretary in September of last year sent out a circular with regard to this Act to the different London magistrates. Under the Act of 1895 the married woman can either apply for the money herself, or it may be sent to her by an officer of the Court. I understand that in London the latter provision had not been taken very much notice of; at least the magistrates did not actually explain it to the persons before him. The Secretary of State therefore asked the justices of Liverpool, where it appears that the other practice had been in vogue, for a report on the matter, and if your Lord-
760
ships will permit me I will read a few of the remarks made in this report—
"In every ease since October, 1909, in which a separation order has been granted in a Liverpool Police Court the option has been offered to the parties of having the money paid through the Court. Between October I, 1909, and September 30, 1910, there were 263 separation orders granted and in 252 of these the order contained a direction to this effect. In the vast majority of cases it was the wife who availed herself of the option. The payments are made in Liverpool through the cashier in the clerk's office, and in order to facilitate the payment by working men the office is kept open from 5 to 6 p.m. on Fridays and until 2 p.m. on Saturdays. It will be seen, therefore, that the additional office work involved has been considerable, but there is no doubt that this is amply compensated for in three ways Firstly, by the absence of the frequent complaints of brutality to the wives when formerly they had to collect their maintenance; secondly, by the keeping of accurate accounts between the parties, which entirely disposes of the constant disputes which used to take place as to the amount due, on proceedings being taken for arrears; and, thirdly, by the medium afforded to the parties to sound each other through a disinterested third party as to the prospects of a reconciliation."
This practice has been in vogue now for over three years in Liverpool, and has worked admirably. The object of the circular incorporating this information which was issued by the Home Secretary was to ask the Metropolitan magistrates to put it into operation in London; and, as I have already told your Lordships, if this Bill passes the procedure will be nearly identical with that under the Act to which I have referred.
As to the attachment of wages under an affiliation order, the Government consider that on the whole this is a useful and salutary provision; but there is no doubt that there will be a certain amount of opposition to it generally. Lord Gorell, in fact, has told us as much; and this morning when looking through the answers received to the inquiries which he made on behalf of the Divorce Commission I noticed that a great many of the municipal corporations are against it, notably such large corporations as that of Liverpool, and also a great many of the large business firms such as the Cotton Spinners' Association, the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers Federation, and the Printers' Association are opposed to the proposal. Therefore it is well to consider whether such an order against a man might not militate against his employment. I am inclined to think that generally it would, although I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the

761
noble Earl that that is no reason for not enforcing it. The man gets into the trouble himself, and if he had paid the money in the first instance there would have been no affiliation order made against him. I think that if the employer had to send the money to the mother there would be a great deal of trouble; but if the procedure was that the money should be sent to an officer of the Court I do not think there would be any grave objection. The general attitude of the Government is friendly towards the Bill. We do not think that it goes far enough, but the provisions as they are are excellent and in our opinion should be supported by your Lordships' House.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, there are two observations that I would like to make. One is in regard to the procedure which I understand from my noble friend would be likely to be adopted if the Bill were passed. If I understood him rightly, the officer appointed to receive these weekly payments would he a clerk in the office of the justices' clerk—
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Or any one whom they cared to appoint.
LORD CHARNWOOD: Then he might be a different person in different cases. That quite meets ray point. But if the suggestion which I understood my noble friend to make had been carried out, it would mean that in rural districts the man who had to make these payments would have a long journey to take weekly, and that would give rise to friction. I submit that in many districts Lord Gorell's suggestion would be the better one—namely, that the probation officer should be the person appointed for this purpose.
I understand it was the wish of the noble Earl in framing this Bill not to overload it, but there is one further amendment of the law that I should like to have seen introduced into it had it been possible, and that is an extension of the time which a man against whom such an order is made has within which to make an appeal. I did not quite agree with the remarks of the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading that there was no danger to speak of that these orders might be mistakenly made. I have in my small experience as a justice of the peace come across a case in which I had practically no doubt—and
762
I think the Home Office had no doubt—that an order had been made in mistake, and I believe the Home Office recognise that such mistakes do occur. It has been recommended, I think, by the Committee to which reference has already been made that the length of time for appeal should be extended, and I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider between now and the Committee stage whether he cannot agree to the addition of a new clause to the Bill extending the time for appeal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know that there is very much for me to add to the debate which has just taken place, except to say, in association with every other speaker who has addressed your Lordships, that we on this Bench are very much in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord who has just sat down has said with truth that he would hardly like to give an absolute assurance that mistakes are never made in these cases. Of course mistakes are made, but I think the figures which my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill submitted to your Lordships are sufficient to show that these matters are inquired into with great care, and that there is no desire on the part of the magistrates to find in favour of the woman as against the man. On the contrary, the process of proof in a case of this kind is exceedingly difficult, as any one of your Lordships knows who has sat on the Bench when any of these cases have been tried. It is exceedingly difficult for the woman to make out her case, and the magistrates are very careful indeed in coming to the conclusion that paternity is proved. That being the case, I think we may assume that proper care is taken.
It certainly seems elementary justice that the heavier burden should not fall on one of the parties to the relief of the other. At present the working of the law is that far and away the heavier burden falls on the woman in cases of this kind. Even when the case is actually proved up to the hilt, by far the heavier weight falls on the woman. That is certainly on the face of it unfair. The man ought to bear his burden, and the rule of practice—in one sense a reasonable rule of practice—I that the sum of money awarded against the man must depend on his means of livelihood may be carried too far.

763
If a man chooses to incur this liability he ought to discharge it even if lie is put to great inconvenience in doing so. Therefore I think that my noble friend is rightly advised in saying that once a case is proved the responsibility of further enforcement of the law should rest upon the Court. The matter passes out of the hands as it were of the parties, and it becomes the duty of the State to see that justice is done. My noble friend has not gone to any extreme length in carrying out this principle because I observe that he has still left all the cost of the proceedings to fall on the woman; but at any rate he has put in an officer of the Court as an intermediary, as an agent, who can see, as far as the State can do so, that the law is enforced and that the obligations of the man are fulfilled.
Something has been said about Clause 2 of this Bill—the attachment of part of the wages of the man in payment of the sum due. It has been said by the noble Lord who made such an interesting speech from the Cross Benches in addressing the House for the first time to-night that in many cases it might involve the loss of the man's employment. Let me say that, in the first place, the man had full warning. He ought, without any process of law, to have fulfilled his obligations, and it appears to me that he has very little to complain of if he forces the woman to go into Court and on the judgment going against him his employer is applied to in order that the man's obligations may be securely fulfilled. It is possible that when your Lordships get into Committee on this Bill some further safeguard may be introduced to avoid any possibility of mischance. If possible, we should like to prevent the man losing his employment; because on his continual employment depends the possibility of his paying the sum which is due. At the same time the plain dictates of justice are that the money having been found to be due the man should be forced to pay it, even if it is necessary to go to his employer to see that the money is paid. There is a well-known precedent for this procedure in the case of serving soldiers. As you know, when an affiliation order is made against a soldier the money is deducted from his pay by the commanding officer when application is made, just as my noble friend proposes in his Bill that the money should be deducted by the employer from the wages of the man in his employment. That is a very apt precedent, and
764
a justification for the proposal which is here made. I earnestly hope that the Bill may have a Second Reading. No doubt it will require some little care when we come to the Committee stage, but I do not doubt that with the assistance of your Lordships a very useful measure will emerge from the discussion, and one which ought to be added to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3aon Monday next.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, this is purely a Money Bill to empower the Treasury to issue from the Consolidated Fund the various sums required for the Army, Navy, and Civil Service. It is absolutely normal in form. Of late years it has been usual to take sufficient money in the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, passed at the end of March, to carry on the Public Service till the Appropriation Bill in July or August. But this used not to be the case before 1905, and there have been exceptions since—namely in 1909. This year, in the circumstances explained by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in March, it was impossible to include enough money in the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill to last to August, and therefore another Bill is now necessary, to which Royal Assent must be obtained on Friday to carry on the Public Service. There will subsequently next month be the usual Appropriation Bill. The reason why enough money could not be taken in March is this. The amount taken is identical with the amount voted in Committee of Supply, and in order to comply with the law it is necessary for the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill to pass by March 31. This spring, owing to the short ness of the time between the meeting of Parliament and March 31, Navy Votes could not be taken in time for inclusion

765
in the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, and therefore the sum included in that Bill was proportionately smaller. The Prime Minister stated at the time that a second Consolidated Fund Bill would be required. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 22.—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.