Sitting of 29 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
North British Railway Bill [Lords],
Rochford Rural District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
East Ham Corporation (re-committed) Bill,
The following notice of Motion stood on the Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means:—"That, in the case of the East Ham Corporation (recommitted) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."
Mr. PIKE PEASE: I object.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to object. The reason I have put those two Motions on the Paper is that this Bill was twice delayed by the exigencies of public business. It was no fault of the promoters of the Bill, and, seeing that is the case, I thought it was only fair that we should endeavour to make up for that lost time to them, and it
258
would be only carrying out the clear decision which the House came to last week when the matter was debated. There will be further opportunity for the opponents in the other House.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: I am sorry to object to the Bill, but I was asked by an hon. Member to object, and I have no other reason for doing so.
Question deferred.
Leith Harbour and Docks Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill, and Electric Lighting Provision Orders (No. 6) Bill.
Mr. MOONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as to how he proposes to take the first of the two Bills out of the category of opposed Bills.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: In each of the two Provisional Order Bills on the Paper there is one opposed Order, and the others are unopposed, but I have a letter from the Board of Trade stating that they do not propose to proceed with the opposed Orders contained in those Bills, during the present Session, and therefore the Bills will come before the Unopposed Committee.
Mr. MOONEY: I understand that an official Amendment will be moved to strike out those particular Orders?
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Yes, that will be carried out on the undertaking I have given.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill To-morrow.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and the Committee on

259
Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill To-morrow.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Pilotage Provisional Order Bill,
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill To-morrow.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Message from the Lords,
That they have agreed to:—
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Southport Corporation Bill,
Heathfield and District Water Bill, with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,
Dover Harbour Bill, with an Amendment.
Amendment to—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,
Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.
Fresh Water Fish (Scotland) Bill,
Order [11th April] for committing the Bill to a Standing Committee read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.—[Sir John Barran.]

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 19th July, 1913, granting a Retired Allowance to Herbert Davis, Civil Assistant, Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1913, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold civil employment of profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.238.]

TRADE UNIONS (MEMBERSHIP AND EXPENDITURE).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 24th July; Mr. Hoare]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 239.]
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.
Copy presented bf further Correspondence relating to the recent disorders on the Witwatersrand and the Employment of Regular Troops [by Command]; t o lie upon the Table.
WINE PRIVILEGES ABOLITION BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Wine Privileges Abolition Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 240.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 240.]
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GLASGOW ELECTORAL DIVISIONS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 241.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 241.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 242.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 242.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 283.]

ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of Receipts into and Payments out of the Road Improvement Fund for the period from 1st April, 1912, to 31st March, 1913, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 237.]
EAST INDIA TRADE.
Copy presented of Review of the Trade of India in 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Pekin Syndicate.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Pekin Syndicate, although a British company, is controlled abroad; and whether His Majesty's Government has received any allegations with reference to the treatment of the labourers in the mines of this syndicate?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I am aware that the syndicate is largely representative of foreign capital and interests, but as I understand that half the board of directors, including the chairman, are British subjects, I presume, that the syndicate cannot properly be described as controlled abroad. Allegations of the nature referred to in the second part of the question have reached His Majesty's Government arid have formed the subject of correspondence with the representatives of the syndicate. The reply of the latter is now under consideration. At the same time, I must point out that the allegations respecting the treatment of labourers consist of a statement that there is preventable loss of life because the European staff employed is too small to exercise proper supervision and not sufficiently experienced. It is impossible for me in addi-
  262
  tion to the ordinary work of the Foreign Office to undertake in the case of British companies all over the world outside British Dominions the- detailed work of expert investigation and control that is exercised by the Home Office in the case of mines in Great Britain.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, by the Report of the Putumayo Committee, that there is no particular desire at all on the part of the Foreign Office officials abroad to convey to the Foreign Office information of these atrocities, and no particular desire on behalf of the Foreign Office to investigate them?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not admit that at all. That is not the case. I have already endeavoured to point out that this is not at all a case like the Putumayo atrocities. That is an exceptional case which involves something quite different from a case where it is a question of preventable loss of lives, owing to inexperienced people being employed in the mines. That is not on all fours with a case like that of Putumayo.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked whether, in any proposals that may be made between the Powers for the settlement of the Balkan question, due consideration will be given to the suggestion of extending to other minorities guarantees for racial and religious liberty similar to those which it has already been agreed shall apply to the Albanian areas to be incorporated with Servia?
  Sir E. GREY: The object that the hon. Member has in view is, of course, most desirable, but I cannot say how far it will be practicable for the Powers to make further stipulations than they have made already.
  Mr. J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the point in mind?
  Sir E. GREY: I will bear the point in mind. I did not mean to imply that it was out of the question that any further stipulations should be made, but only that I could not make any promise.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will give the House infromation as to the position of the Turkish forces in Thrace, and the effect of their incursions upon the civil population?
  Sir E. GREY: I have only received information of the same general tenor as that which has appeared in the Press; there is no news of further Turkish advance into Bulgaria.

  Alexander Adamovitch.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, according to the dispatch he received from Lord Kitchener respecting the arrest of Alexander Adamovitch (Cd. 6874), the only charge brought against this man was that he had committed an offence outside Egyptian territory, namely, that he had led the revolutionary movement among the crews of the merchant vessels at Odessa and put himself at the head of their strike; whether he is aware that the various articles of the Capitulations set out in the dispatch refer entirely to offences alleged to have been committed in Ottoman territory, and that it is expressly provided that subjects of the Capitulatory Powers who are neither accused nor convicted of any crime or offence shall not be molested; and whether, in view of the fact that the four cases quoted by Lord Kitchener as precedents for this case are all irrelevant to it, being all cases in which the accused persons were charged with offences alleged to have been committed in Egypt, he will now cause further inquiry to be made into the matter?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEalso asked the Secretary for Foreign. Affairs whether he will invite Lord Kitchener to state the information upon which he bases the statements contained in his dispatch (Cd. 6874), to the effect that the Russian prisoner Adamovitch was shown to have been in the habit of boarding all Russian ships arriving at Alexandria for the purpose of carrying on a revolutionary propaganda among the crews; whether there was any documentary evidence to support this accusation, or whether it was shown by the books and documents seized that the only object aimed at by Adamovitch in these visits was to invite seamen to join a bonâ fide trade union; and whether this is an offence justifying the Consul-General in permitting the Alexandria police to be used for his arrest?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know what the evidence was nor whether it was ever in the possession of the Egyptian authorities. I can, if desired, inquire as to this, but it is not a material point, for it is not necessary according to the practice under the
  264
  Capitulations for any offence to be stated in order to secure an arrest. For instance, in October, 1908, the French Consulate requested the arrest of a French citizen. In December, 1910, the same Consulate applied for the arrest of three of its nationals, and in February, 1913, the Greek Consulate applied for the arrest of a Greek subject. In none of these cases was any charge specified. I do not therefore propose to make any further inquiry into the matter.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any precedent in support of what he says as to the practice that no offence need be stated so far as regards offences committed outside the territory?
  Sir E. GREY: If no offence is stated, we do not know whether it is committed inside or outside the territory. I have had cases brought before me in which arrest is asked for by foreign Consuls without stating any offence, wherever committed.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I take it there is no precedent for an arrest in which it has been stated clearly that it was for an offence committed outside the territory?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not say that. It is covered by the fact that it is not necessary to charge any offence at all.
  Mr. MORRELL: Then it is simply a question of practice, and is not covered by the Capitulations?
  Sir E. GREY: It is certainly a question of practice, and practice of many years' standing.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    FOREIGN MEAT SUPPLY
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War why, in view of the fact that men in the Navy are fed chiefly on Home-grown beef at an unknown price, it is found necessary to feed men in the Regular Army, Special Reserve, and Territorial Army on foreign beef at 3¾d. per pound; and could he see his way in the future to feed British soldiers on British beef?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY for the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): It is not propsed to make any change in this direction in regard to contracts for supply of meat to the Army.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why our defenders on land are fed on cheaper, and therefore inferior food than our defenders at sea? May I further ask is it fair to the farmers that you should use their land and refuse to buy the beef they breed?
    Mr. BAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that some of the beef to which he refers comes from British Dominions over the seas.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand from that answer that the First Lord of the Admiralty prefers that Treasury money should be paid to people abroad rather than to farmers at home?
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not a fact that by far the largest proportion of the beef of the supply comes from Ireland?
    Mr. BAKER: A very large proportion does.

    ARMY HORSES.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of Lord Esher, president of the County of London Territorial Force Association, that within a measurable distance of time mounted troops for Home defence could not be provided with horses; and whether he can say what steps the Government propose to take to remedy the deficiency?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I hope to be able to make a general statement on this question tomorrow.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not the fact that the Yeomanry are very short of horses, and that a special appeal has had to be sent round for horses for Yeomanry regiments? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the War Office have yet ascertained how many Yeomen can safely be accommodated on one horse in time of war?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last one, I think I shall satisfy the hon. Gentleman by my statement to-morrow.
    Mr. HUNT: I very much doubt it.

    ARTILLERY BATTERIES.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary for War the present number of effective Artillery batteries in
    266
    the Regular and Territorial Forces, respectively in this country; the number of practice rounds fired by each battery annually; how many rounds does he consider it necessary should be fired annually for an officer in the Regular Artillery to attain complete efficiency; and if he has any information as to the practice facilities afforded for Artillery in France, Germany, and the United States?
    Colonel SEELY: The number of Regular batteries other than training batteries is 14 Horse Artillery, 84 Field Artillery, and 6 heavy batteries; and of Territorial Force batteries is 14 Horse Artillery, 151 Field Artillery, 3 Mountain Artillery, and 14 heavy batteries. As regards practice rounds I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to a question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ludlow Division on the 16th instant. I understand that the annual allowance for each Field battery in the United States Army is 290 rounds.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the first part of my question? Will he say how many rounds it is considered necessary should be fired for an Artillery officer to become efficient?
    Colonel SEELY: That is a matter of opinion. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the very full answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow, I think he will find that I have replied fully on all these points.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is it not laid down that six hundred rounds should be fired annually in order that an Artillery officer may become fully efficient?
    Colonel SEELY: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to his hon. Friend.
    Mr. LEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman answered the latter part of the question as to how many of the Territorial batteries are effective?
    Colonel SEELY: That is a matter of opinion. I believe the hon. Gentleman holds very strong views on the point, but if he wants to know the views of the Board as to the relative merits of the batteries, and will put a question down, I will endeavour to get the information.
    Mr. LEE: But how many Territorial batteries are, in the opinion of the War Office, effective?
    Colonel SEELY: In our opinion all the 151 batteries are effective, but their relative efficiency is not one that can be discussed by way of question and answer across the floor of the House.

  Land Taxes.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the cost of valuation and collection in connection with the land taxes under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, down to 31st March, 1913, amounted to £1,356,000 and the revenue to £223,430, or if he will state the correct figures; if he can give the estimated figures under these heads for the three years to 31st March, 1916; and if he is yet in a position to state by what year the revenue from these taxes will equal or exceed the expenditure?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): As regards the cost of the valuation and the yield of the Land Value Duties to 31st March, 1913, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Chelmsford on 28th April last. As regards the remainder of the question, the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his anticipations at the time he produced the Budget of 1909 have been realised with regard to these Land Taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That does not arise out of this question, but I shall be happy to discuss the point on the Revenue Bill later on.

  Small Holdings (Scotland).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is plenty of suitable land for three times the number of applicants for small holdings in the island of Coll; whether not a single holding has been created there; and whether he hopes to deal with the applications from that island before the November term?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am aware that there is land in Coll suitable for small holdings. No new holdings have as yet been formed there, but the Board of Agriculture have applied to the Land Court for orders to constitute some new holdings and enlargements on three farms there, and proposals to subdivide certain
  268
  other farms there are also under consideration. I cannot give an undertaking as regards the matter referred to in the last part of the question.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a request from, Mr. Donald Shaw, as representing several hundreds of applicants for small holdings in the North and West of Scotland, to meet him in deputation concerning various grievances regarding the administration of the Small Landholders' Act; and when he proposes to meet the same?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: After hearing from Mr. Shaw, I gave him an opportunity of seeing me in Glasgow, which, however, did not happen to be convenient to him. I cannot say how many applicants he represents. I hope to be in Edinburgh shortly, when I shall be able to see if a mutually convenient time can be arranged.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to meet this request?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, we are doing our best.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether the Board of Agriculture has submitted a scheme for settlement to the Land Court with regard to the farm of Esligarry, in Barra, and another with regard to the farm of Miltown, in South Uist; whether the Court decided that certain of the applicants could not be accepted; whether the Board of Agriculture has so far refused to say which these were; and whether they will now indicate these applicants in order that they may make other arrangements?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board will not be in a position effectively to negotiate with applicants for their settlement on holdings unless and until the Land Court issue orders making the land available, which they have not yet done. Under these circumstances the Board cannot yet announce any selection of qualified applicants.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that the Board had decided that certain applicants cannot be accepted, and, if so, would it, not be a convenience to those applicants to be made aware of the fact, so that they may apply for other lands?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not in a position to answer that question until I have read the Report.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the farm of Baugh, Tiree, consisting of 230 acres, has been apportioned as follows: Three enlargements amounting in all to 23·6 acres, five new holdings amounting to 41 acres, and the remainder, 166 acres, to a merchant squatter who applied to the proprietor; whether the son of the previous occupier applied for a holding and was refused; and whether, seeing this farm was vacant, and in view of the desirability of creating confidence in the administration of the new Act, he will explain why this action was taken?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The existing farm of Baugh has been subdivided in the manner described, the tenant of the farm who had obtained a lease as from Whit Sunday, 1913, prior to the Board's application for land agreed not to oppose the taking of 64 acres provided he was left in occupation of the rest of the farm. It is the case that the son of a previous tenant of the farm applied for a holding and was refused. His application was received after arrangements had been concluded with the proprietor and the tenant of the farm and a selection of the applicants had been made.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in this case why when this farm was available for small holdings 166 acres were given to a squatter merchant?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He was the tenant who obtained the lease.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the competitive designs for houses and buildings suitable for small holdings in Scotland have been adjudicated upon, the Board of Agriculture propose to make such designs available in any convenient form to the public in the near future.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board are proposing to prepare for distribution a standard set of plans, for which the submitted designs will be used.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will they be issued in leaflet form?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know that they will be issued in leaflet form, but it will be in a form convenient to the tenants.

  Mentally Defective Children (Scotland).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland the number of children in Scotland of school age who have been sent to institutions for defectives by the school boards and are maintained by such school boards out of the school rate for the last complete school year and for the last complete period of ten years, respectively; whether he can state the defects from which such children were suffering; whether any of them were suffering from such grave mental defects as would bring them within classes (a), (b), or (d) of Section 1 of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Bill; and whether, if there have been any such children already dealt with, he will give particulars of the same?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is impossible to give the detailed information asked for, especially for the last ten years, but I may say that at the end of the last school year there were 186 such children in all in the following residential schools:—Biggar Memorial Home School (Glasgow School Board); Kirkintilloch Waverley Park School for Defective and Epileptic Children; Humbie Special School (Edinburgh School Board); Strathblane Children's Home Hospital; and Glasgow East Park Home.
  Mr. HOGGE: Am I to take it that these children do not come under Class C?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I think they would come under that class. At any rate a great part of them would, but I cannot go into details here.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OIL FUEL.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether the terms of agreement with, or concessions to, oil trusts or combines operating in British territory, or territories under British protection, have included, or will include, a clause providing that a stated number of tons of oil shall be reserved for the use of the British Navy at a price calculated on the cost of production in addition to a charge of 10 per cent, to cover interest on capital?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the stipulations contained in Clauses 12 to 16 of Part VII. of the schedule to the lease scheduled to the agreement in Command Paper 6861. Those stipulations as to pre-emption in time of war and emergency and control of

    271
    works are so far considered sufficient by the Admiralty to safeguard the interests of His Majesty's Navy, but the question of adopting further safeguards, especially in regard to the obtaining of crude oil at reasonable prices, will be kept constantly in mind.
    Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why nothing has been done to meet it at present? In view of the fact that it has been constantly in mind and that nothing has been done at present, may I ask why the right hon. Gentleman has neglected his obvious duty?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman will obtain some information as to the performance of my duties if he will consult Clauses 12 to 16 of Part VII. of the Schedule to the lease scheduled to the agreement in Command Paper 6861.
    Mr. HUNT: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer a plain question?
    Mr. HUNTasked whether any agreement is in existence relating to British territory or territory under British control, operated by an oil trust or combine, which contains a stipulation for the reserve of oil for the British Navy without stating the price at which the oil so reserved shall be delivered to the agents of His Majesty's Government; and whether, if there is such a clause, there is anything to prevent the oil concession-naires thus favoured from charging 20s. a gallon in time of war to the British Government?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The agreement which embodies the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the stipulations that are considered necessary in the interests of His Majesty's Navy will be found in Command Paper 6861. It is provided in Clause 15 of Part VII. of the Schedule to the lease printed in that Paper that, in default of agreement, the price to be paid for oil taken compulsorily by the Governor shall be referred to two arbitrators. I am not aware of the existence of any agreement which would have the effect apprehended by the hon. Gentleman in the last part of his question.
    Mr. HUNT: What is going to happen while war is going on, and while the arbitrators are arbitrating? Are we to pay 20s. a gallon for oil?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot at present tell the hon; Gentleman what is going to happen when war is going on.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know nothing about what is going to happen?
    Mr. HARCOURT'Sreply was inaudible.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is a very intelligent answer?

  St. Lucia.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the discussion in the Legislative Council of St. Lucia as to the need for immediately providing for the Vigie light at the signal station; and whether, seeing the importance of the harbour of Castries to the island of St. Lucia, and in view of the improvements proceeding in the competing French and Danish islands, he will arrange for the provision of the light to be immediately proceeded with?
  Mr. HARCOURT: My attention has been called to the discussion in question. Provision has been made on the current Estimates for commencing the work, but, after consultation with the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, it has been decided to perfect the Tapion and new leading lights system first.

  Women Typists (Post Office).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Postmaster-General whether he will abolish the disability under which the women typists in the secretary's office are employed in not having the benefit of the full Treasury scheme, or whether, since this exception virtually places the General Post Office typists in a class by themselves, he can see his way to recognise the Association of Post Office Women Typists?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I regret that do not see my way to alter the arrangement whereby the number of shorthand typists is limited to the number actually required. The women typists in the Post Office are not a Post Office class, but belong to a class common to all Government Departments in London. Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to practice for me to recognise an association formed by those officers in the class who are attached to my own Department. Any representations

  273
  made by them in regard to matters which concern the Post Office alone will receive, however, the fullest consideration.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Secretary's office alone, where women are employed as typists and shorthand writers, that on a typist reaching the maximum salary she is not permitted to have the benefit of the scheme?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. The reason for the difference is that in the Post Office the conditions are quite different from other Government Departments. There is much less demand for the work of shorthand writing in proportion to the need of typists than there is in other Departments.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is that class common to the service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The class is common to the whole service. They enter by the same process. The only difference is that when they go into a higher grade there is a smaller ratio of shorthand writers appointed in the Post Office than in other departments.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That is to say the conditions and prospects of these women, who enter by competitive examination, are far less in the Post Office than in any other Government office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are scomewhat less, owing to the conditions of the work.

  Post Office (Promotion).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Postmaster-General whether three male cleaners at Bradford, one of whom has done sorting work as a season's assistant for years and two others have done work, have been refused permission to apply for appointment as postmen, whilst other cleaners, with shorter records of service, who have not had any experience in his Department except as cleaners, are being appointed as postmen, the reason for this preference being that the cleaners selected have previously been in the Army or the Navy; and will he say if it is. the settled policy of his Department in this matter to close and bolt for ever the door leading to promotion against certain members of the Post Office staff irrespective of their character, ability, and industry, and of their length of service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The three male cleaners referred to are ineligible, under the policy which has been followed for many years past, for appointment as established postmen, as they have not served in the Army or Navy, or as boy messengers, and they could only be granted such appointments at the expense of candidates who have had previous service in one or other of those capacities. The other male cleaners mentioned had had such service.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS' REMUNERATION.
    Mr. GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet any statement to make with regard to the remuneration of sub-postmasters for their work under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to questions on this subject.
    Mr. WHYTE: When is it to be issued?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Very soon after the Report of the Select Committee of this House is received. I understand that will be issued in a few days.

    THEATRICAL EMPLOYÉS
    Mr. BOWER MANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is felt by theatrical employés with regard to their employment being classified as "subsidiary," with the consequent exclusion from the scope of the National Insurance Act; whether the National Association of Theatrical Employés was consulted in any way before the issue of the Order; whether any communications have been received showing that this class of employment is in the bulk of cases not subsidiary, but the main means of livelihood; and whether any further consideration can be given to the matter with a view to the revocation of the Order in question in the event of the association's contentions being proved?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Part-time employment in certain specified capacities has been excepted as being subsidiary employment by a Provisional Special Order, dated 13th July, 1912. Before the Order was made the draft was widely published, and a copy was sent to the

    275
    National Association of Theatrical Employés. That body has not furnished any evidence which appeared to the Commissioners to justify the modification of the Order or the holding of an inquiry. A fresh Draft Order has recently been published, in which it is proposed to add part-time employment as supernumerary to the theatrical employments already excepted. The Provisional Order has not yet been made substantive, and objection may be made to the Draft Order on or before 20th August on behalf of any of the persons affected.

    HOPITALS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked what amount, if any, has been paid to hospitals or other similar institutions under Section 21 of the National Insurance Act in respect of services rendered by them in connection with the working of the Act?
    Mr. BENN: The information asked for by the hon. Member could not be given at present without a special return from over 20,000 societies and branches and over 200 insurance committees. Subscriptions to hospitals and similar institutions under Section 21 of the National Insurance Act are made not by the Insurance Commissioners, but by societies and insurance committees.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any substantial sum has been given to the hospitals by the insurance committees or any other authorities?
    Mr. BENN: I am not in a position to answer that question.

  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General if his expert advisers have informed him as to the distances which should separate high-powered wireless stations if disturbance is to be avoided; and whether he can inform this House as to what would be such distance required in. the case of the Telefunken system, the Marconi system, the Goldschmidt system, and the Poulsen system, respectively?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The distance depends upon so many factors that it is impossible to give a definite answer to either part of the question. In the case of the Marconi station at Clifden and the high-power station on the Poulsen system
  276
  in the south-west of Ireland, for which an experimental licence was granted some months ago, my technical advisers considered that the intervening distance of about sixty miles should suffice.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General whether, as there is nothing in the proposed contract with the Marconi Company which imposes any restriction with regard to the granting of licences to private companies to carry on competing business along the same route as is to be followed by the Imperial wireless service, he will be prepared to consider applications for such licences within the next few weeks?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In view of the considerations I have mentioned in answer to previous questions the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked who is to decide whether the grant of a licence in any specified territory would or would not involve competition with the Imperial stations?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The final decision would rest with the licensing authority of the territory concerned.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General if he will state by whom he was informed that the Poulsen Syndicate in this country were not in possession of the patents which were used in the American Poulsen service; and if he has any further information upon this point?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In answer to a supplementary question on 16th July I stated that I understood that the Poulsen Syndicate in this country were not in possession of the patents used in the American Poulsen service, as that was the conclusion which I had drawn from the evidence given on the point before the Select Committee. The president of the American Poulsen Company denied that the British Poulsen Syndicate had any rights over the distinctive patents used by his company, and though in subsequent examination he admitted that the legal position was uncertain, he did not admit the existence of such rights. The solicitor of the British Syndicate, while asserting their existence, agreed that to enforce them might involve litigation in England, Denmark, and the United States. I gather from a statement recently made by the managing director that the British Poulsen Syndicate reasserts its claim, but he has not stated,

  277
  so far as I am aware, that the view of the American Company expressed to the Select Committee has since been modified.

  Money Orders (Cancellation).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General, if, under the regulations of the Post Office, the sender of a money order can, on remitting a fee of 4d. to the office where the order is payable, cancel payment; if he is aware that this rule is taken advantage of by persons to obtain goods without payment; and if he will consider the advisability of making such an alteration as will prevent the regulation being used for the purpose of defrauding tradesmen and other persons sending goods to customers on an assurance that a money order has been forwarded for the same?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part, of the question is in the affirmative, but if the order is an ordinary one and has not been paid at the time at which the stop notice is received it is at the option of the Postmaster-General whether or not he refunds the amount of the order to the remitter or pays it to the consignee notwithstanding the remitter's notice. The number of cases in which advantage is taken of stoppage of payment of either ordinary or deferred money orders for fraudulent purposes is small, and in respect of ordinary money orders extremely small. I am, however, considering a modification of the regulations which may have the effect of making the perpetration of any fraud still more difficult.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Secretary for Scotland why the old age pensions to Robina Nicolson and Elizabeth Cruickshank, at Causa, Nethy Bridge, have been withdrawn; and if he will have this matter reconsidered?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the old age pensions referred to were withdrawn on the ground that the old age pensioners were in receipt of parochial relief, inasmuch as they were occupying, at a nominal rent, houses owned by the parish council on behalf of the poor. It is not competent to reconsider the decision, but if there is a change in the circumstances the persons referred to may apply again, when the case will be considered in the light of the then existing conditions.
  Mr. MACPHERSONasked how many male and how many female old age pensioners there are in Ross and Cromarty; and what aggregate sum was distributed for old age pensions to them last year?
  Mr. BENN: The number of old age pensioners resident in Ross and Cromarty on the last Friday of March, 1912, was 4,442, 1,694 males and 2,748 females. The aggregate sum distributed to these pensioners is not ascertainable. As regards the year 1912–13, I would ask the hon. Member to await the issue of the Report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for that year. The Report will contain a table showing the number of pensioners (male and female) in each county and county borough area on the last Friday of March, 1913, together with an estimate (necessarily only a rough one) of the total amount paid for pensions in the area during the year.

  Swindon Prosecution (H. G. Winchcombe).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Harold George Winchcombe, a grocer's assistant in the employ of Mr. H. Haines, of High Street, Wootton Bassett, who on the 14th instant was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for embezzlement by the Swindon magistrates; and whether, in view of the fact that the prisoner was in receipt of a wage of 10s. a week only, on which he had to maintain a home and wife, he will advise a reduction of the sentence?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am inquiring in regard to this case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as my inquiry is completed.

  Metropolitan Police (Ex-Inspector Syme).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a pamphlet has been published by ex-Inspector John Syme, of 13J, Chapter Street, Westminster, in which charges of condoning and encouraging perjury and blackmail, and other serious offences, are made against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the Home Secretary, and his predecessor; is he aware that this pamphlet is being sold at large public meetings at which the charges are repeated; and is it

  279
  intended to take any action against the publisher of this pamphlet or to institute an inquiry into the charges made?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by me on the 30th October and 21st November, 1912, to similar questions put by the hon. Member for North Islington. I am still of opinion, in view of the obvious falsehood of the allegations made and of the antecedents of the person by whom they were made, that no action is called for in respect of them.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied carefully the statements in this question, namely, that at the present time the pamphlet is being sold in large quantities at public meetings; is he aware that the statements contained in the pamphlet are not obviously untruths, and, in view of the effect it is having, is it not important that action should be taken against the people who circulate it, or that the Department should in some way take action to clear the persons charged?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will consult the Chief Commissioner upon the observations made by my hon. Friend, and will let him know later on.

  Hops (No. 2) Bill.
  Mr. WHELERasked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider his decision not to proceed further with the Hops (No. 2) Bill during the present Session; and whether, if time cannot be found for the discussion of this measure during this Session, the Government will reintroduce the Bill next Session at an early date and give facilities for its discussion in the House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I fear the exigencies of Parliamentary business will not allow of reconsideration of the decision. The claims of the Bill will be taken into consideration in determining the business for next Session, but I can give no pledge on the subject.
  Mr. WHELER: Owing to the late introduction of the Bill, is it not clear that it had no possible chance of ever being carried into law?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; I hoped to carry it.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, if a confer-
  280
  ence is held of representatives of landlords and tenants in Ireland to discuss the terms of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill and an agreement come to upon its terms, he will give facilities for passing it as an agreed measure at the earliest possible date after such agreement; and (2) whether, having regard to the importance of the land purchase question in Ireland, he will convene a conference of representatives of the landlords, the tenants, and the Treasury, with a view to having the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill passed as an agreed measure; and, if so, will he have steps taken as soon as possible to bring these representatives together?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As the proposals of the Government, financial and otherwise, are to be found in the Land Bill, a print of which will be in the hands of Members in a few days, no useful purpose would be served by my convening a conference of the representatives of Irish landlords and tenants. If such representatives, during the recess, can agree among themselves, such agreement would probably further the passage of the measure into law next Session.
  Mr. HEWINS: Have there already been any negotiations between the Irish Members and the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member had better ask the Chief Secretary. As far as I know, none.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cause of the delay in printing the Bill? Is there any precedent for this?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know. The hon. Member should ask the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked if the county Wexford estate of Boyd, Neale, C. H. Burchell, and others has yet been inspected; and, if not, will the Estates Commissioners fix a date for its inspection?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The lands have been visited by a surveyor to check the boundaries and will, it is anticipated, be inspected at an early date for the purpose of estimating the price which the Estates Commissioners might offer for them. They are not at present in a position to fix a date for such inspection.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the cause of the delay in granting to Timothy Sullivan, of

  281
  Granardkille, a purchasing tenant on the Hamilton estate, a sum of money promised him by inspectors of the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of building a proper dwelling-house and out offices on his farm; and whether, in view of the fact that the sale is now four or five years completed, will the loan promised be advanced to enable him to make the farm economic?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Grant which the Estates Commissioners promised to make to assist Sullivan in erecting buildings on the holding will, in accordance with their practice, be paid in instalments as the work progresses. When the lands were last visited by one of the inspectors, Sullivan could not show any work done for which portion of the Grant should be paid to him. If he has since done any such work he should notify the inspector, and if the work is not done within a reasonable time the Grant, will be withdrawn.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the total number of acres sold under the Land Purchase Acts prior to 1903, the 1903 Act, and the 1909 Act; and the average price paid per acre in each case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: With the hon. Member's permission I will publish with to-night's Votes a statement in reply to this question.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial signed by a number of representative men recommending Patrick Callanan, Killeenan, Craughwell, county Gal-way, to their best consideration for a holding was received about six weeks ago; and will he say if the matter of the memorial is engaging the attention of the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The matter will be considered if, and when, the Estates Commissioners acquire the property.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the tenants on the estate of Concannon and St. George, Kilcolgan, county Galway, have been served with receivable orders demanding arrears of rent alleged to be due prior to the Congested Districts Board taking over the estate; and will he explain why a demand is made for the arrears and who is entitled to receive them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The offer of the Congested Districts Board for this estate was accepted on the 22nd May last, and on the 19th July demands were issued by the Board to the tenants for the half-year's rent payable in May, and a year's rent in a few cases where tenants did not pay on the last November collection. Until the Board become vested owners of the estate they are not in a position to cancel any arrears of rent. The Board are entitled to all arrears under the terms of their offer as accepted, and such arrears will be dealt with in accordance with the usual practice when the estate becomes vested in them.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has yet taken any steps to acquire the Parke's grazing ranch, Drummons, Glencar, county Leitrim; and whether, having regard to the fact that the congested tenants in the district memoralised the Board in reference to this ranch, it being the only waste land in the parish, and that the tenant who is now in possession as an eleven months' tenant expressed in writing his willingness to give over the farm for the relief of congestion, the Board will purchase it for that purpose?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As the Congested Districts Board have not acquired the estate of Colonel Parke they are not prepared to negotiate for the purchase of the tenancy interest referred to.

  Criminal Law Amendment Act.
  Captain FABERasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that cases have occurred where girls have been, forcibly induced to enter motor cars with unknown women, even in the presence of policemen, he will issue an Order that any policeman having such a case brought to his notice should accompany the women to any address that is given, in order to satisfy himself that it is a genuine case?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner or Police informs me that no such incident as that described in the question has come to the knowledge of the Metropolitan police, and any constable witnessing it would certainly intervene. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases to which he refers, I will have the closest inquiries made. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that many tales of a similar

  283
  character have been circulated in London, but in no case have the police been able to find the least evidence of their truth.
  Mr. FELL: Is a policeman permitted to leave his beat in a suspicious case of this kind?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no truth at all in the particular case to which I imagine he refers.
  Mr. FELL: Can a policeman leave his beat in a suspicious case?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes; certainly.

  Metropolitan Police (Railway Privileges).
  Mr. REMNANTasked if the members of the Metropolitan police force are allowed the same railway privileges as are given to men serving in the Navy and Army?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Cheap Trains Act, 1883, applies to police in the same way as to soldiers and sailors. Metropolitan police officers travelling on official business are conveyed at three-fourths of the ordinary fare. When not on duty they receive no special privilege.
  Mr. REMNANT: If these men are recalled for emergency duty while away on holidays, will any expense fall upon them for their journey in getting backwards and forwards?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into that point.

  Metropolitan Stage Carriages (Inspection).
  Mr. F. HALLasked what practical training in the construction of stage carriages is received by the police officers to whom is entrusted the inspection of Metropolitan stage carriages; and if the training is of a nature to qualify them to express an opinion as to the causes of accidents arising from defects in design or materials?
  Mr. McKENNA: No police officer is appointed to the branch at Scotland Yard, which deals with public carriages, until he satisfies the Commissioner of Police that he is fully competent to deal with all the practical part of his work, including that arising from accidents, however caused.
  Mr. F. HALL: What is the practical training which these officers have in view of the holding up, sometimes for two or three hours, of the tramways of the London County Council?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is a practical training in machinery, motor machinery particularly, and most of them hold a certificate of knowledge in that particular kind of work.

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Home Secretary whether the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools have recommended that the appointment of superintendent of these schools should be subject to the consent of the local education authority; whether he will consider the advisability of providing that consent to the appointment and dismissal of teachers in these institutions should in all cases be within the power of the local education authority in like manner; whether reformatory and industrial schools are maintained out of public money; and whether the teachers in such schools should have the same advantage of appeal to the local education authority in case of dismissal as teachers in non-provided schools under the Education Act, 1902?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Departmental Committee have not recommended that the appointment of superintendents of reformatory and industrial schools should be subject to the consent of the local education authorities; their recommendation is that these appointments should be subject to the approval of the Home Office. The question of giving local education authorities powers over the appointment and dismissal of teachers in these schools was fully dealt with in the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 21st of this month.

  Board of Admiralty (Oil Shares).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the disclaimer of the Board of Admiralty that they had had no dealings or interests in the shares of oil companies was first suggested by him as a proper course to be taken to the Board, and, if not, by which of the Lords of the Admiralty?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Sir, I proposed to the Board of Admiralty that a statement of

  285
  our disinterestedness should be made to Parliament, and my Naval and Civil colleagues willingly associated themselves with me in making it. We considered that in view of the wide discretionary and confidential powers we are using on the one hand, and the prevalence of rumours and suspicions on the other, it would be a good thing for the House and the public to receive such an assurance. If the hon. Member is shocked at the procedure which we adopted in protection of naval interests, he should remember that the responsibility for the conditions which have led to it rest with those who have given countenance to scurrilous imputations, for which they admit they have no evidence or justification.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Was there any suggestion or rumour that the Naval Lords had had any dealings in oil shares?
  Mr. GEORGE HAMILTON: Are we to understand that the initiative for this extraordinary statement was the right hon. Gentleman's and did not proceed from the Sea Lords of the Admiralty?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said I proposed to the Board of Admiralty that such a statement should be made. I am at a loss to see why the hon. Gentleman should think that such a statement is humiliating or undignified, or why I should be so much more careful of the dignity or honour of naval or military officers or civilian officials than of Ministers of the Crown.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Members of the Government that they should also concur in the disclaimer?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I preside at the Board of Admiralty. That is the Board charged with dealing with these matters, and it is on their behalf that I make statements to the House.
  Mr. HUNT: Has any imputation at all, in the papers or otherwise, ever been brought against British admirals or British gentlemen in the Navy?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Board of Admiralty as a whole is responsible for these contracts. They are dealt with by the Board collectively and as a whole, and any suggestions or imputations of bad faith in the matter, or of failure of public duty, apply to the Board collectively, and would be resented by the Board collectively.
  Mr. HUNT: Have there ever been any imputations at all?

  Coastguard Pay.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will give permission for the wishes of the Coastguard to be ascertained on the question of weekly payments of wages instead of monthly as at present?
  Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): I am not quite clear what method of ascertaining the wishes of the Coastguard on this matter my hon. Friend has in mind, but, if they desire to be paid weekly, it is open to them to make representations to that effect through their commanding officers—though I must not be understood as giving any undertaking as to the result of such representations.

  Admiralty Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. P. Hall and Sons, engineers, Peterborough, who are making feed pumps for the Admiralty, are employing patternmakers at a rate below that paid by competing firms in Peterborough; and whether he will take action in the matter?
  Mr. LAMBERT: No information has-been received on the subject of this question, but inquiry is now being made.

  Railway Accident (Colchester).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received from the officials of the Great Eastern Railway Company any explanation of their failure to make arrangements for the supply of food to those excursionists who, as a result of the accident at Colchester on the 12th of July, were detained on their return journey throughout the whole of the Saturday night, many of whom did not reach the London terminus until eleven o'clock on the Sunday morning; and, if so, will he state the nature of such explanation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): A letter has been received from the company, which I am having printed with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Have the officials of the Board made any inquiries on their own account or have they only received the reply of the directors?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is naturally the first step to be taken, to communicate with the company. If necessary further inquiry could be made.

  Deposit of Refuse (Three-Mile Limit).
  Colonel BURNasked whether the Board of Trade can exercise any jurisdiction over the deposit of refuse in the sea outside the three-mile limit?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware that any case in which the question of the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade to regulate or prohibit the deposit of refuse in the sea outside the three mile limit has arisen, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any special case in mind, and will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into it.

  Workmen's Trains.
  Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure that young women coming to the city by the workmen's trains may travel by a later train, so that they may not have to wait about the streets for an hour or so before they can commence work?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with any representations on this subject which he may have received I shall be glad to consider them.

  Labour Unrest.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister whether, by the receipt of copies of resolutions passed by labour organisations, or in any other way, he has been made aware of the existence of serious discontent among the wage-earning classes in this country, especially or. the railways; and, if so, whether the Government is taking any steps to ascertain and, if possible, to remove the cause of the discontent, or whether it is the settled policy of the Government in such matters to postpone intervention until a struggle has actually broken out?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not received resolutions of the nature stated, but it is a matter of common knowledge that there is much dissatisfaction with existing conditions among the wage-earning classes, and that it finds both individual and organised expression. The matter does not cease, in its various aspects, to engage the attention of the Government.

  Civil Service Appointments.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many appointments as messengers, postmen, warders, and park-keepers there were under Government on 31st March, 1913; and how many of these appointments were held by ex-Navy and ex-Army men?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer the hon. Member to the Return issued yesterday on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division, which gives full particulars for each Department.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why not half of the appointments are filled by ex-Navy and ex-Army men?
  Mr. W. BENN: That is not the question on the Paper. I would rather have notice of the question.

  Customs Watchers.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a short interview to the representatives of the Customs watchers to discuss the question of compensation allowance in consequence of the diminution of overtime pay caused by the issue of the new regulations under General Order, Customs, No. 26, 1913?
  Mr. W. BENN: Before considering this request my right hon. Friend would be glad to see a statement of the case in writing.

  Tuberculosis Officers.
  Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board how many tuberculosis officers have been appointed; and how many of them do not possess the qualifications recommended by the Departmental Committee on tuberculosis, and approved by the Local Government Board in their memorandum of 14th May, 1912, and repeated in their memorandum of 6th July, 1912?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis)The appointments of seventy-eight tuberculosis officers have been approved by the Local Government Board; approval has been given in these cases after obtaining the concurrence of the Insurance Commissioners, and the officers appointed possess the necessary qualifications. There may be some cases

  289
  of appointments which have been made, but which have not yet been reported to the Board.
  Mr. ASTOR: May I take it that every tuberculosis officer appointed comes up to the standard required by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: So far as I am aware that is so.

  Neath Non-Provided Schools (Teachers' Salaries).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in the borough of Neath applications have been made by the teachers in non-provided schools and by the managers of the schools to the county education authority that they may be paid salaries granted by that authority to teachers of like service and qualifications in council schools; whether he is aware that the salaries allowed by the local education authority are insufficient to maintain the schools within the meaning of the Education Acts, as the teachers are continually leaving for council schools cither in or outside the area; whether he is aware that no steps have been taken by the local authority to give effect to the provisions of the Education Act, 1902, as interpreted by the House; of Lords; and whether the Board are now prepared to ad rise the local education authority that, the question of law having been finally determined, they should now proceed to give effect to the Act of Parliament?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Joseph Pease): On 10th July the Board received from the managers of Alderman Davies's Charity School, Neath, a complaint that the local education authority had failed to carry out their duties in providing the salaries necessary for the due maintenance of the school. The Board invited the observations of the authority with regard to this complaint and were informed that the matter would be brought before the education committee at their next monthly meeting. I am unable, at this stage, to say what advice, if any, I may ultimately have to give to the authority in the matter.

  Education Supplemental Grant.
  Mr. COOPERasked what is the amount that will be due to the borough of Walsall under the Supplemental Grant of £150,000 provided under the Education (No. 2) Bill?
  Mr. PEASE: If the hon. Member will consult paragraph 2 of the draft Regulations for the distribution of the £100,000, he will see that the distribution will be proportioned to the sums borrowed by local education authorities during the year ending 31st March, 1913. As I shall have no information of the total borrowings of local education authorities until the Returns under paragraph V of the Regulations have been delivered I am not in a position to state the amount that will be payable to the borough of Walsall or any other authority. In regard to the £50,000 for medical inspection, which, as the hon. Member knows, is to be taken as an addition to the- subvention already on the Estimates for medical treatment, I hope to lay Regulations in the course of a few days.

  Contagious Abortion.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to an observation which the President of the English Board of Agriculture made in Scotland, recently, to the effect that contagious abortion among live stock is a greater danger than foot-and-mouth disease; whether this disease was introduced into one of the dairy herds of the Irish Agricultural Department by two cows imported from England; whether this disease has existed there for the last two years in spite of all the efforts of the Board's experts to eradicate it; what steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the disease in that district; whether the disease exists in other parts of Ireland; and, if so, where, and for what periods, and what means are being taken to eradicate it?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to the statement in question, and he concurs with the views of the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as to the seriousness of contagious abortion among cows, though he is not in a position to compare the losses arising from it with those from foot-and-mouth disease. The disease broke out in one of the Department's dairy herds in the North of Ireland last year, but it cannot be said positively how it was introduced. The usual precautions to prevent the spread of the disease, namely, isolation of the affected animals and thorough disinfection, have been taken with, so far, satisfactory results. Contagious abortion in cattle has existed

  291
  in Great Britain and Ireland for many years, but judging by the complaints now received it is not so prevalent in Ireland as it was formerly. The means taken to eradicate it are the dissemination of knowledge amongst farmers as to the necessity for isolation and thorough disinfection, and for the improvement of the hygienic condition under which the herd is kept. This information is disseminated by the agricultural instructors who are employed in every county in Ireland, and by means of pioneer lectures and leaflets, as well as at the winter classes of agriculture held throughout the country.

  Dundrum Asylum, Dublin (Attendants' Hours of Duty).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what are the hours of the attendants at the Central Criminal Asylum, Dundrum, Dublin; if these men are on duty for thirteen and a half hours a day, with one day off every ninth day; and, if so, will he at once take steps to mitigate those hours, especially in view of the nature of the men's work?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The inspectors of lunatics inform me that the hours of duty of attendants at Dundrum Asylum vary from day to day and from week to week. The statement that an attendant is on duty thirteen and a half hours a day, with one day off every ninth day, is, as a rough summary of his hours, fairly accurate. With regard to the latter part of the question, the inspectors point out that the duties of an asylum attendant are not, on the whole, very arduous. In most asylums a day's duty runs to from twelve to fourteen hours, and in some cases even longer. The hours in Dundrum are not exceptional, and an appreciable reduction can only be made by a large addition to the staff. The proportion of attendants to patients in Dundrum Asylum is at present amongst the highest in the United Kingdom
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing that the fact stated in the question connected with the working days, namely, that practically these men are off one day in nine, is correct, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to justify the working of the men thirteen and a half hours a day for eight consecutive days?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I wish to be sure of that. It all depends what you mean by "work-
  292
  ing." A great deal of the work of an attendant at a lunatic asylum would not be described by my hon. Friend or myself as work. I have visited many of these asylums, and while I think it is most desirable in the interest of the men themselves-that they should have a longer period of leisure, I do not think that, although they are on duty this length of time, it is extremely hard work.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that through being on duty so long they have no leisure at all? The rest of the time has to be spent in sleeping?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is where I agree with the hon. Member. If we can reduce the hours, it should be done.

  Johne's Disease.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the difficulty and often the impossibility of distinguishing, even, after the application of the tuberculin test, between Johne's disease and tuberculosis, the consideration that is equally desirable to exterminate the former fatal and apparently contagious disease, and the fact that the slaughter in error of animals affected thereby involves serious financial loss to local authorities, he will amend the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 so as to include Johne's disease within its provisions?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Although I am not prepared to accept the statement that it is often impossible to distinguish Johne's disease from tuberculosis, I am advised that confusion may occur when the animal suffers from extreme emaciation; but in such cases the animal cannot be worth much more than its carcase value, and, so far as I am aware, no local authority has suffered serious financial loss owing to mistakes of this kind. The scientific investigation of Johne's disease instituted by the Board has made good progress, and when it is completed the Board will be in a better position to consider what action should be taken to check the loss caused by the disease.

  Venereal Disease.
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he has had brought to his notice the document signed by forty doctors as to the desirability of a Royal Commission being appointed to inquire into the ravages of venereal disease, of

  293
  which there are about 40,000 cases of the gravest character each year; and whether he will appoint such a Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire.

SOUTH AFRICA (STRIKE OF MINERS).
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies a question, of which I have given him private notice: Can he state when the dispatch of Lord Gladstone relating to the recent disturbances on the Rand will be available?
Mr. HARCOURT: Yes. The telegrams which passed between Lord Gladstone and myself and the dispatch which arrived on Sunday will be, I hope, at the disposal of hon. Members now or within an hour in the Vote Office. Two subsidiary dispatches which arrived later I shall print with some other Papers, and I hope that they shall be at the disposal of hon. Members to-morrow afternoon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would state what business he proposes to take after the Revenue Bill to-night, and also what business he proposes to take on Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to Friday, I shall be obliged if the Noble Lord will ask me to-morrow, as much depends on the progress which we make.
  To-night, after the Revenue Bill, we shall complete the remaining stages of the Mental Deficiency Bill. Thereafter, we hope to take—
  Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—Second Reading.
  Local Authorities Contributions (Crystal Palace) Bill—Committee.
  Foreign Jurisdiction Bill—Second Reading.

BILL PRESENTED.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADJUSTMENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To extend and amend the Law relating to the adjustment of financial relations between Local Government areas in Scotland on the alteration of the boundaries thereof, or other change in relation to which the adjustment takes place." Presented by COLONEL GREIG; supported by Sir Walter Menzies, Mr. John Henderson, Sir John Dewar, Mr. Macpherson, Captain Campbell, Mr. Morton, Dr. Chapple, and Sir William Beale; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]

REVENUE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not wish to detain the House at any great length, but there are certain matters which I think should be brought to its notice. The first observation that will occur to everybody here is that this is a very remarkable period of the Session which has been chosen for the Second Reading of this Bill. We were told three months ago that this sub-division of the old Finance Bill,
308
covering the whole area of finance, which has to be considered by this House, was not to deprive us of the usual opportunity which the House has had of considering our finance in all its bearings. But we now find ourselves at the fag end of the Session only at the Second Reading stage of this Bill, the Revenue Bill, which is the only opportunity which this House has of considering the whole area of finance for which we are responsible, with the exception merely of Income Tax and Tea Duty. When the Leader of the Opposition raised this point last Tuesday the Prime Minister suggested to the House that we had already had seven days of general debate on finance, and were going to have another day of general debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. But I think that the Prime Minister must have misapprehended the nature of the complaint, because the Second Reading stage of the Revenue Bill is not really the important stage. The important stage of the Revenue Bill is the Committee stage, and it has been the invariable practice of the House that every Member on both sides should on the Committee stage of the Revenue Bill have the opportunity to raise in the form of a new Clause any particular suggestion which he desired to make for the amendment of the finance of the year in any direction, in fact of the whole finance of the country; and the complaint made from this snde of the House was not that we have insufficient time for general debates upon finance, but it was a complaint of the suggestion which was then made by the Prime Minister that unless we were prepared to take this Bill as it stands and treat it as non-controversial, and refrain from moving new Clauses other than to the most limited extent, the Bill would be dropped. The Prime Minister did modify that attitude later and promised us a reasonable opportunity for discussion.
I do not wish to go over that ground again, but I must again remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although this particular Bill as it now stands deals only with a very limited area of finance, the Revenue Bill is not limited in any sense to the particular matters in the Bill as now introduced by the Government, but covers the whole area of finance, and it is only on this Bill that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will have the opportunity of raising points not only connected with the Land Taxes, but connected with other questions of very great urgency.

309
For instance, I suppose that there is no matter more urgent and more engaging the attention of the country from one end one the other than the relief of the burden of local taxation by Imperial contributions. This is a matter which is germane to a Revenue Bill, but obviously it is impossible to raise it on this particular Bill, and even as regards the Land Taxes and the Licence Duties there is not a single word in this Bill referring to Undeveloped Land Duty, which is one of the most serious grievances in the Land Taxes themselves, and, although we had what I think we might call a pledge on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or at least if not a pledge an announcement, that this Bill would contain Clauses dealing with grievances under the Licensing Clause of the Budget, there is not a single word about licences in this Bill. There are questions of licences which urgently require the attention of the House, and none of those matters are mentioned, nor any of several other matters which obviously are open and ought to be open for the consideration of the House. The position of this House in regard to dealing with finance is becoming steadily worse. I do not think that anyone will contradict me when I say that never was there more necessity for this House to devote attention to finance than at the present time. The area covered by our finance is greater than ever it has been. The sums with which we deal are larger than ever they were, and the complications which have been introduced, particularly by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, are of such a character that they require constant consideration. Difficulties and hardships now exist, which were never dreamed of years ago when finance was given a very much more prominent part in our discussion, and I am quite sure that proper control on finance and our responsibility to see that taxation should be just and evenly distributed, is the very first duty of this House. Apparently now it is to be relegated to the very end of the Session, as we find ourselves always of late when legislation is under the control of the Parliament Act. That is our position, and the Finance Bill has been divided on account of the Parliament Act. That was the definite statement of the Government and the reason why this Bill is now being read a second time at this extraordinarily late period of the Session is because the bulk of the Session has been taken up in repassing party measures under the provisions of the Par-
310
liament Act, so that it is on account of the Parliament Act, for which the Government are responsible, that the House finds its control over finance and its opportunity for dealing with finance entirely and most harmfully limited.
I desire to deal with this Bill as it stands for the time being. May I say at once that, for my own part, I welcome the introduction of this Bill as, at any rate, one thing that this Bill clearly does is that it completely gives away the whole principle of the land taxation of the Budget of 1909? I cannot be expected personally to show any grief at that result. Apart from that, it is also clear to everyone who has read the Bill that it contains certain concessions, particularly to builders and small owners, for which many of us on this side have constantly and continuously contended ever since the Budget was passed into law, and those concessions we are very glad to see. They will require some Amendment, and I hope that Amendment may be introduced when we arrive at the Committee stage. It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate what suggestions we have to make on the Clauses. The Amendments will be very simple and not numerous, but I do wish to make my own attitude perfectly clear, and it is that we desire to accept these concessions which are given to small owners and builders, not as adequate concessions in any shape or form, but as giving some measure of relief to those who are suffering the greatest injury from these taxes. There is one feature which is rather remarkable about the Bill. I do not know whether there is any precedent for a six-page Bill being accompanied by a twelve-page explanatory memorandum. It is really rather difficult to know which is the Bill—whether it is on the White Paper or on the Blue Paper. I think the history which has led up to the introduction of this Bill is rather a peculiar one. It is a very remarkable change of front on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I think both the House and the country are bound to take note.
Taking that part of the Bill, that important part of the Bill, which deals with the taxation of builders' profits as exemplified in the Lumsden case, the House will have it well within its recollection that for the past two years that matter has been constantly brought forward in the House. The White Paper instructions have been in this House again and again compared with the definite assurances given by the

311
Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing would be taxed but any increase in the value of the bare land. The White Paper instructions, on the other hand, proposed to tax profits entirely outside the value of the bare land, even when it was admitted that the value of the bare land had not increased by one farthing. That matter was brought forward again and again as one of the fulfilment of pledges, and as a matter of ordinary justice and as a matter of the intentions of this House at the time the principal Act was passed. Then it culminated finally with the Lumsden case, and the facts of the Lumsden case focussed public attention to this matter, and on this very point my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Royds) put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him what his intentions were in dealing with the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, said:—
"The excessive price over value was in the nature of a fortuitous windfall which under the Statute was liable to taxation, and I do not propose to introduce amending legislation."
That was his statement on the 22nd January last, and now, six months later, in July, he introduces an Amending Bill to remedy the very injustice of which he then was fully aware, and which he definitely stated on the 22nd January to be according to the Act and which he refused to remedy. What happened after that? I cannot help saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to regard his office, as one which involves duties to his party but does not involve duty to the country, and I say so on this ground: If he regarded his office as one involving duty to the country, he would look upon a question of this kind as one of right and of justice, and not merely as a question of expediency or a question of votes. The right and justice are the same to-day as they were on the 22nd January last, but the political position is very different from what it was then. We have not been able since the 22nd January to adduce any new fact of any description. The arguments are the same. The injustice is the same, but certain things have happened, certain incidents which have struck the imagination of the country. The country takes note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that profits in the nature of fortuitous windfalls are liable to taxation under the Statute, and the country observes that there are other kinds of fortuitous windfalls which are not liable to taxation, and that fact, which "w as very prominent during the months
312
which have intervened between January and now, has struck the imagination of the country, and has forced opinion on this matter until the Chancellor of the Exchequer found that it was a matter, not of justice, but a matter of political danger and political expediency to remedy the wrong created by the Clauses of the principal Act.
4.0 P.M.
Another factor which, I think, must have weighed with him was the Leicester election. The candidate at the Leicester election, having no doubt informed the party authorities opposite that there were many small holders, I believe some 3,000 in the borough of Leicester who were up in arms against the injustice of the Act on the points raised by the Lumsden case, received authority to make a promise, which was given on the platform, no doubt from the party opposite, that some measures were going to be introduced such as these, and probably the same Clauses as those which are contained in this Bill. I do not think it is much to the credit either of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the party opposite that when we ask for justice here time and again over the floor of the House that we cannot even get civility—I do not say from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have not always had it from the Secretary to the Treasury on these matters, and we get no redress whatever. Certainly we have not, and I feel bound to say that. We get no redress of any sort or description, but as soon as the matter becomes one which attracts the attention of the country and appears to be a matter of votes and not a matter of justice, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempts to deal with it. I feel I am bound to make that comment, although I do not want to-do it in any controversial sense. I mean I do not wish in saying that to be taken to be opposing the introduction of this Bill. My criticism is upon the late introduction of the Bill, and not upon the fact of its being introduced. This Bill deals almost entirely with the question of Increment Value Duty Before saying a word on the particular proposals of the Bill, I must point out that the measure leaves very little in the Increment Value Duty. I should be inclined to put it that before this Bill was introduced the Increment Value Duty was a crime, and that if this Bill passes it will become merely a folly. At present great injury is being done and ruin is being caused to people of small means through the Increment Value Duty. If this Bill passes, amended

313
as I hope it will be, relief will be given to these people.
Under present conditions figures given across the floor of the House make it clear that Increment Value Duty is collected in only two cases out of every thousand valuations on the occasion. If this Bill passes I feel sure that the number will be reduced to not more than one in a thousand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself in a position of putting a thousand people to the trouble of contesting valuations, of having valuers valuing in every direction and spending endless time upon their valuations, and then for every thousand valuations, involving expense, time and trouble, it appears likely that he will collect Increment Value Duty in only one case. Is it reasonabe that the country should be asked to maintain a staff of valuers and to incur this endless expense for such a result? Already the revenue collected bears a ridiculous relation to the cost of collection and valuation. There is a loss of £1,100,000. The figures have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, so that he cannot deny them. That disproportion will be even further increased by these concessions. I cannot conceive how it can be considered worth while to value property in order to get Increment Value Duty in one odd case in a thousand. You have to value on the occasion every time that any unit of property, however small, either passes., on death, changes hands on sale, or is leased for more than fourteen years. These cases are occurring by tens of thousands all over the country. They all have to be valued. The worry and trouble are endless. It costs a guinea on every occasion for the delivery of particulars for obtaining the Increment Duty stamp at the Inland Revenue. That has all to be gone through to obtain in these very few cases a certain small sum of Increment Value Duty.
With regard to Clause 1, the only Amendment that I should suggest is with regard to the insertion of the words "proved to the Commissioners." This point will require to be considered on several Clauses. Personally I do not, and I think we on this side do not, understand why the onus of proving to the Commissioners should be necessarily thrown upon the subject. I understand that, the words being there, it will still be open to the subject to carry an appeal to the Courts. Therefore, I do not see any object in their insertion. I do not wish to argue the point now, but it is only fair to indicate the points that are likely to be raised.
314
As to the Clause itself, it certainly increases the deductions, but I do not know that it reduces the complication. When we come to Clause 2 we get into a rather different region. The Clause is obviously intended to deal with the Lumsden case, and what arose out of it. It certainly is a very remarkable Clause. It says that the two valuations enacted by the principal Act, the original valuation and the valuation on the occasion, are to be made in the same way only when the value of the buildings upon the land being valued exceeds the value of the land itself. How many hon. Members had the knowledge that the two valuations were made in wholly different ways? What, is being done in connection with Increment Value Duty to-day is that two valuations are being made in totally different ways; those valuations are being compared, and the subject is being taxed by a comparison between two different valuations producing different results. You are comparing the incomparable and taxing the subject upon the difference.
When the Act was originally passing through Committee that point was raised upon the proposal to transpose two Clauses. As the Bill was originally introduced, the two valuations were to be made in the same way, but two Clauses were transposed, and the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) and others on this side raised the point whether the transposition of those Clauses did not alter the incidence of the tax and make the two valuations different and incomparable. Definite assurances were given by the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that result would not be reached, but that the valuations would be the same and comparable. Now in this Clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer definitely admits that the valuations are not the same, and he actually proposes to the House that we shall still allow everybody to be taxed on the difference between two incomparable valuations, except those persons who happen to own land where the buildings exceed the value of the land on which they stand. Is that in itself a reasonable proposal? I am very glad that those who have buildings exceeding the value of the land upon which they stand are to be taxed upon two identical valuations; but I cannot understand on what hypothesis other people who happen to own buildings of rather less value than the land on which they stand should be taxed on two different valuations. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer

315
will deal with that point. To my mind it entirely gives away the whole principle of Increment Value Duty, and is a direct admission that the taxes are not upon the basis which was represented to the House. As no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates, we shall propose to omit the words "that the amount of the gross value of the land is more than double the amount of the full site value of the land." That will raise the point to which I have just referred. We shall ask that the valuation be made uniform for all classes of property.
In Clause 3, which is obviously intended for builders, the five years' limitation appears to me to be quite unnecessary. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that Amendments must obviously be moved to remove that limitation on grounds which can be stated in Committee. The benefit which we hope from this Clause, especially if that restriction is removed, is this. What we want and have asked for again and again is that something should be done to remove the insecurity which has been for some time lying over the building trade. It is not so much the actual burden of the tax itself which has affected the building trade as the uncertainty of the builder in not knowing until he has actually sold the house which he has built what claims are going to be made upon him. If he can get a perfectly clean exemption and knows beforehand that no duty will be charged upon him, that will, I hope, do something to reduce the feeling of insecurity. But the Clause is very indefinite. It affects not only builders but those who although not builders are developing building estates. It is not at all clear what area of land will be affected. There is no definition in the Clause. I hope that that point will be explained in Committee. Clause 4 partially grants a concession in connection with which I personally have moved Amendments to the Finance Bills of the last two or three years. The point is one of great hardship, namely, that the sixty days within which anybody may object to a valuation runs from the date at which the original valuation is served. We have pointed out over and over again that small owners particularly, when they receive the valuation proper, do not understand its effect, and as no tax is actually demanded from them they do nothing. Consequently the valuation becomes fixed on the lapse of sixty days. Later on a claim for duty is made, which claim could
316
obviously have been rebutted if the valuation had been questioned at the proper time. What we have asked for is that the opportunity for objection should be sixty days not from the date of the service of the original valuation, but from the date of the first claim for duty. This Clause does not concede that. It falls short in two directions. It only extends the time for claims for substituted site value, and it does not extend it up to the date of the first claim for duty, but only to the time of the first occasion on which Increment Value Duty is payable. It will be suggested that that provision should be extended in the direction I have indicated.
Clause 5 deals with the small investor. So far as the small investor is concerned, we have consistently fought his battle throughout. Why I myself feel so very strongly on this point is this: The difference between the effect of this legislation of the Finance Act upon the small investor, and upon those who are better off is that to the small investor in many cases it means ruin. The hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Sheffield, has pointed out to the Committee again and again, that the immense proportion of the savings of the thrifty working classes of the country are invested in land and house property. The effect of this legislation upon them, through the calling in of mortgages and claims for Increment Value Duty, such as in the Lindsell case—because that is typical of thousands of other cases in the country—has been that immeasurable harm has been done. A man purchases a little bit of land or a house with the whole of his savings. He borrows money upon the purchase. Later he has to sell at a loss; as in the Lindsell case the man sold at a loss of £54. There was just enough to pay off the mortgage. The whole of the man's life-savings were-gone in the £54, whilst he was served with a claim for £4 15s. Increment Value Duty. That ought not to be possible. That means ruin. I may tell the House, and I am quite sure the House will agree with me, that in point of principle there is no shade of difference between the case of the largest landowner and the cases of small owner or investor in house property, because on what ground was this duty recommended to the House and to the country?
We were told again and again that the Increment Value Duty was the resumption by the State of one-fifth of that part of the value of any property which was not in any way due to any action of the

317
owner, but was simply the value created by the community or by the State itself. Is there any other principle on which any hon. Member on the opposite side of the House is prepared to defend the Increment Value Duty. If they are they are on the horns of this dilemma: Either they must defend it on this ground, or say that the Increment Value Duty is a proper duty to impose on all kinds of value, and on all kinds of property—land, investments, and everything else. You cannot have it both ways. If you are prepared to say, and to maintain, that the Increment Value Duty which you are claiming is purely to be raised upon the value created by the community, and by the community only, then I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question—although I welcome this concession. If hon. Members arc prepared to maintain the position I suggest, I say that it has no principle in it. If followed out, the State makes a present of the value which it has itself created, and to which the owner of any property has no title whatever, whether he be a man with a large income or one with only £160 per year, and why should the State do it? The fact is that the introduction of this Clause is definite proof of our contention—it is no use arguing round the hat—and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well, is an admission in the face of the House and the country that the Increment Value Duty is not the resumption merely by the State or by the community of the Increment Value Duty, but that is purely and simply a special tax levied upon one kind of property, from which owners of other kinds of property are exempt altogether. It is nothing less. This Clause cannot possibly be interpreted in any other sense.
My attitude to this Clause is this: That in justice the taxing land owners great and small is absolutely equal. The consequences are very different. The consequence of taxing a large owner of land or of house property may be to annoy him, to put him to trouble, or to put him to expense; but you do not ruin him. At any rate, you have not done so up to the present. So far as the small owner of house property or the small investor is concerned, you are actually ruining him. I certainly would not for a moment stand out for the latter on a matter of abstract principle, or say that because you do not relieve the large land owner therefore you should not relieve the small one. I am very glad to sec that you are relieving the
318
small owner. All I point out is that there is no sort or kind of principle in it, and I conceive it is only a matter of time when Increment Value Duty on the other kinds of property will follow the course which is now being taken with regard to the Increment Value Duty on small owners. I would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we propose on Clause 5 to suggest the extension of the limit—to propose to limit—the exemption to houses, with the land upon which they stand, which does not exceed the value of £500, and where the income of the owner does-not exceed £160. For reasons which can be stated in Committee it will be suggested that that limit should be extended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, will consider that point when the time comes.
When we get to Clause 6 we are in a different region again. Clause 6 is, again, a remarkable Clause Its genesis is peculiar. The House will remember the Minus Values case. The decision of the Scottish Courts was that minus valuations were illegal, and that you could not have a value of less than nothing. That case was carried to the House of Lords. The House of Lords decided that a site value could be less than nothing because it was only to be used as a basis of calculation. But the House of Lords were confronted by those who were against the Crown with the difficulty that in another Clause, Section (3), Sub-section (5), I think it is, of the principal Act, that there was a provision that an allowance was to be made of one-tenth of the assessable site value. It was pointed out to their Lordships that you could not have one-tenth of a minus quantity. That raised a great difficulty in the contention of the Crown that minus valuations were legal. In the judgment which was pronounced in the House of Lords a few weeks ago that point was raised. Lords Moulton and Shaw had this point before them. They only found themselves able to decide in favour of the Crown in the Minus Values case by assuming that this 10 per cent. reduction was not from the assessable site value, but was from the full site value. I need not trouble the House with the words. Hon. Members can read the judgment for themselves. I have it here. On that ground their Lordships felt justified in giving their decision in favour of the Crown. That dictum of the House of Lords that this 10 per cent, reduction was to be from full site value and not from assessable site value

319
creates very great difficulties for the Government, because, up till now, they have apparently been giving this 10 per cent. allowance not upon the full site value but upon the assessable site value. Therefore, all the claims for Increment Value Duty which have been settled are wrong if that judgment is maintained. That dictum was certainly a factor in the judgment—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not doubt that those are the words of Lord Moulton, but a dictum of one of the judges is not a decision of the Court.
Mr. PRETYMAN: There were two judges, and the words were just the same. The words of Lord Shaw are:—
"The parenthetical reference in precisely the occasion on which the Increment Duty if to be collected—that is, the occasion set forth in Section 3, Sub-section (5), which is specially for the purpose of collecting the duty. It is accordingly, I think, pretty clear that it is not allowed to treat the reference to the allowance of the 10 per cent. in Section 3, Sub-section (5), as a reference to the assessable site value at all. It is a reference to site value which is different from the assessable site value."
Lord Moulton distinctly stated that is should be full site value and not assessable site value. Therefore, the position of the Government is this: Having got their judgment on the minus value case, in which this was a factor, they now turn round and ask the House of Commons to declare that the assessable site value, not the full site value, is to be the basis of deduction. I do not see how the Government can have it both ways. Further than that, if we are to assume that this dictum of the House of Lords is to hold good—I presume by the introduction of this Clause that it does hold good—the passage of this Clause 6 will clearly increase the charge upon the subject, because it will reduce the deduction. I think that rather raises a point of Order, and that I shall have to refer the matter, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. May I ask you now as to whether this Clause 6, upon which we now decrease the deduction which, under the dictum of the House of Lords, may now be made for the purpose of calculating Increment Value Duty, and that deduction being decreased, increases the charge, and whether that increase will be covered by the Resolution in Committee of Supply, upon which this Bill is based, merely to amend the law of Customs and Excise, and duties of the Inland Revenue?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a very convenient practice to raise a point of Order
320
in the middle of a speech. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise one or two points of Order when he rose, the effect of which might have been to prevent the Bill proceeding. I gathered he did not really press these points, and that he did not wish to risk my ruling that the Bill should not proceed. If he asks me at this moment to rule in regard to the matter, I must deprecate the point of Order being taken in the middle of a speech. However, in order to oblige the hon. Member, I will say that I think it is very doubtful indeed whether Clause 6 increases the charge. It possibly will be contended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it does not, and that this Clause is one for the purpose of diminishing and not for increasing the charge. Supposing, however, it were clear that it increased the charge—and I could only come to that decision after hearing argument on both sides—then it would be necessary, no doubt, that before Clause 6 could be considered in Committee it would be necessary to pass a separate Resolution, as the Resolution on which the Bill has been introduced would not cover this Clause.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That was my point, Mr. Speaker. My hope was that it would not affect the existence of the Bill or the Clause. The only point was as to whether a further Resolution would be needed, and that is the point on which you have just informed us. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to reply now upon the point of Order, or will he defer till afterwards?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not desirable to introduce points of Order like this. It will be better for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the hon. Gentleman in the course of his later reply.
Mr. PRETYMAN: There is also a point of Order on Clause 11. I do not know whether or not it will be proper to raise it now.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is more convenient, as I indicated just now, not to have points of Order put in the middle of a speech, but at the beginning. I waited for some little time when the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to see whether he was going to raise his points, but he did not. Preliminary objections of this sort should be taken before the Debate proceeds.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I thought. Sir, it was better to raise it when I came to the

321
Clause. To come to the Clause which deals with Reversion Duty. They are only small concessions. But they do not in any sense go to the root of the matter, and there has been so much difficulty upon Increment Value Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty that Reversion Duty has rather been lost sight of; but of all the taxes imposed by the Budget of 1909 Reversion Duty is in one sense the most unjust, and for this reason, that the tax is nominally imposed upon a benefit received by the lessor on the determination of the lease. If the taxes were really imposed upon benefits received by the lessor it could be defended upon that ground, but the tax is not imposed upon benefits received by the lessor, and it cannot be pretended that it is. What the Act says is that benefit accruing to the lessor is to be taken to be something which it is not at all. It is deemed to be the difference between the value of the property at the commencement of the lease and the value at the end of the lease, quite regardless whether the lessor takes the benefit or not. May I give the House a simple illustration which will show exactly how the thing stands—that is, the effect of the Reversion Duty as it exists to-day?
It is a common thing for a building lease to be granted with an option of purchase on merely the capital value of the ground rent. Take a piece of land worth £1,000. The owner is willing to sell it for £l,000, but the person who desires to purchase and build upon it does not want the immediate option, and he says to the owner, "I should prefer u ninety-nine years' building lease, with an option within the first ten years to purchase the freehold and to enfranchise by paying £1,000." The owner agrees at £40 ground rent, with a right of purchasing the freehold by paying the original £l,000, which was the then value of the land. Under the Reversion Duty the owner who has agreed to that receives, let us say, five years afterwards notice from the lessee that he proposes to exercise his option under the lease and to enfranchise by paying the £1,000. It must be perfectly clear to the House that in that case the lessor receives no benefit whatever. He simply receives £l,000, the value of the land at the commencement of the lease, but the lessee obtained the lease to build a house upon it worth, let us say, £3,000. When he enfranchised the owner gets £l,000, and no more, but under
322
the Budget of 1909 the benefit to the lessor is to he deemed the difference between the value of the land at the commencement of the lease, which was £l,000, and the value of the land with the house upon it at the determination of the lease, which is £4,000, and therefore 10 per cent. on £3,000, or £300, is the reversion which will be claimed from the lessor, but a deduction is made from that of 2½ per cent. for every year remaining unexpired of the lease with a limit of 50 per cent. That reduces it to £50 and the owner of that property when he took his £1,000 no more or less would be fined £150 because of the enfranchisement of the lease. I take a case which occurred in my own place in which I happened to be concerned where there is a property in a seaport town. It is an institute serving a most beneficent purpose, and it was let upon a ground rent of 1s. a year. It is desired to enfranchise that and make it a freehold. Twenty-five years' purchase amounts to 25s. As I understand this Reversion Duty, a duty will be charged upon the owner of that land amounting to the difference between the original value of the land at the time the lease was granted between the difference of 1s. and the value of the land to-day with the buildings upon it. But as it stands now the 1s. would be treated as if it were the original value of the land and its commercial rent, which, let us suppose, is £40 or £50 a year. Twenty-five years' purchase at £40 would be £1,000 and the value will be treated as if it was £1,000 at the commencement. That will be taken as the value of the premises at the time of enfranchisement and the owner of that property will be charged 10 per cent. between the difference, although he gets no benefit. That stops all enfranchisement, and I am sure one of the things we desire on both sides of the House is as far as possible to get enfranchisement of leaseholds and the creation of freeholds.
If any leaseholder applies for enfranchisement the lessor will say to him, "I should be very glad, but I cannot do it without having this enormous burden of Reversion Duty placed upon me, nominally upon the benefit I received, but which has no relation to benefit whatever, and even if I enfranchised without charging more than a farthing of the capital value of the ground there would still be a heavy Reversion Duty put upon me." May I also point to another vice of this Reversion Duty which does not apply to the other duties—and it applies also to Section 14

323
of the Act—and it is this: It is a duty that falls with great weight upon one locality and does not fall at all upon another. Take two towns like Ipswich and Grimsby, with almost identical populations and similar rateable values. Grimsby happens to be leasehold, Ipswich is freehold. You have an enormous Reversion Duty levied upon the town of Grimsby and taken away to London by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ipswich bears not a farthing of that burden at all. If there is to be any form of Reversion Duty, it is clear that that duty should be solely applied for local purposes in the locality where the duty is raised. In London there are many leaseholds, and there are many towns where there are no leaseholds, but no distinction is made. Surely, national burdens ought to be evenly levied over the country, and not according to the custom which happens to prevail in one locality and not in another, so that one locality should not bear enormous burdens while the other does not bear a farthing. Amendments will be proposed and new Clauses will be proposed to which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give careful attention for remedying these evils of Reversion Duty. I come now to Clause 11, the last Clause, and the most remarkable Clause of all, dealing with the valuation of agricultural land. I must in the first instance refer to the explanatory statement issued with this Bill. If hon. Members will look at page 9 of the explanatory statement on Clause 11, they will see the first sentence is:—
"The object of this Clause is to adapt the valuation provisions of the Act of 1910 for the purpose of ascertaining the assessable site value of agricultural land as agricultural land."
I think this sentence is very misleading, because there is not a word in the Clause that touches the assessable site value of agricultural land. All the Clause does is to add another column to the valuations which are imposed by the principal Act, but unlike all the valuations which are imposed by the principal Act, that valuation determines the basis for actual or potential duty for Increment Value Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty. That Clause enacts the valuation which is set out in terms in the explanation here. If hon. Members will look at page ten, they will see that the last part of the paragraph referring to this Clause says that—
"Inasmuch as the separate site value provided by the Clause has no immediate fiscal significance, no hardship is entailed."
324
Was there ever a more remarkable statement placed before this House than the statement made here, and this is a considered statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is asking the House to sanction legislation which has no immediate fiscal significance? Did any Minister of the Crown ever ask the House of Commons to legislate for a purpose which he is proposing only at some future time to reveal? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I do not think in the history of politics any such statement as that could be found. I do not know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer got his precedent from. I think he must have gone to the Stock Exchange for it, because the only precedent I can find is in the history of the Stock Exchange at the time of what was known as the South Sea Bubble, when I believe at the culmination of that period of a Stock Exchange gamble some company promoter issued a prospectus in which he asked the public to subscribe for shares under a project the object of which would hereafterwards be revealed. And I believe he obtained a very large sum of money upon that prospectus, and I think hon. Members opposite will bear mo out in that. The House of Commons, as far as I know, have never previously been asked to pass legislation and authorise expenditure of money for a purpose hereafterwards to be revealed, and it is definitely stated here that it is to have no immediate fiscal significance.
I was going to raise a question of order upon this point as to whether a Clause which enacts no tax and has no relation whatever to any tax existing or proposed in this Bill, or in any other Bill, conies within the title of the Bill, but I am afraid I lost my opportunity. I do not want to destroy the Bill, and therefore perhaps it is just as well the opportunity was lost, but of course, I cannot say what the ruling upon the point might have been. There are other points arising upon this Clause. This Clause does not meet in any way the grievances which agriculture has laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What we ask is, that the assessable sable site value of other kinds of property, ascertained on the same line as the assessable site value of other kinds of property, and what this Clause does is, it leaves the method of the ascertainment, of assessable site value of agricultural land absolutely untouched. It leaves untouched the extraordinary provision by which on arriving at the assessable site value of

325
agricultural land, you allow drains to be deducted which pass through buildings, but not drains which do not pass through buildings. I had a case brought to my notice to-day down in the South-West of England where three farms were being valued. Each had an expensive system of irrigation. One passed through the buildings, the other two did not touch the buildings on the farm. The one was given a deduction because the drains happened to pass through the buildings, the other two were given no deduction at all, because the drains did not pass through the buildings. We know on the principles now in force that deductions are allowed for buildings upon a farm, but no deductions are made for buildings upon somebody else's farm adjoining. Roads are allowed which lead to farm houses or buildings, but not those which lead through the fields. On the other hand, sea walls and river walls and embankments are not allowed. It is of very great importance to the agricultural industry to get those deductions increased, and get them at the lowest possible point upon the assessable site value upon which their duties are being calculated, because the basis proposed is the assessable site value.
This is of infinitely more importance to owners of agricultural land than the Increment Value Duty is. The effect of insufficient allowances in calculating assessable site value directly increases the charges upon them for Undeveloped Land Duty, because it is charged on the differ-once between the agricultural value of the land and the site value of the land when it acquires a building value, Obviously it is to the interest of owners of agricultural land to get the site value down, so that when the comparison comes to be made, the difference between the agricultural value and the site value will be reduced. That grievance remains wholly untouched. All these test cases will apparently still have to go on, and the whole gamut of expense and uncertainty will remain. Further additional valuations have to be made in which abstruse calculations are to be made of how much of the value is due to improvements of any kind. Then we have the absurd restriction and limitation that no improvements are to be deducted if made more than thirty years ago. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really intend that? Why has he put that in the Bill? I feel sure that this Clause was introduced with a desire to meet the objections which have been raised
326
on this side of the House; but the question is so difficult and complicated that the whole purport of the Clause appears to have been misunderstood by those who drafted it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers must know that a very large proportion of the agricultural land in this country owes most of its value to drains, river walls, and large undertakings which have created valuable agricultural land out of marshes, and that work has been done, not thirty years, but fifty, one hundred, and even two hundred years ago. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really mean to say that whatever this future fiscal purpose may be which is not revealed, he proposes to take this site value of the land with all improvements of every kind deducted from it; and does he suggest that he is going to confiscate and treat it as if it had been made by the State every improvement made by any owner more than thirty years ago? Is that a proposal which can be reasonably made to the House of Commons? Let us have it one way or the other. I want to know on what conceivable principle the House of Commons can be asked, in ascertaining the bare site value of building land, to deduct every improvement that has ever been made that can be claimed as an individual improvement by any previous owner, but when you come to agricultural land—which is the oldest industry in the country, where the improvement has been made for a much longer period with better results than in any oilier trade or industry—you are going to put in this limitation excluding all improvements made more than thirty years ago? Really, that is not a proposal which can commend itself to either side of this House. Hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural constituencies have a duty to perform to their constituents in this matter, and I am sure they are as anxious to serve them as we are on this side of the House, and how can they support a limitation in a Clause that is going to deprive agricultural owners, above all classes in the community, of the whole of the value of any improvements which they may have made more than thirty years ago?
That is a very short period in the development of any country, particularly in regard to agriculture, and I cannot understand on what basis the Chancellor of the Exchequer can have introduced that limitation in a Clause intended to be a concession. The whole Clause will require most careful consideration and consider-

327
able amendment, and while we appreciate the intention with which the Clause was introduced, we cannot see that it can do us any good, and it should either be withdrawn or very largely modified in the form of allowing the assessable site value of agricultural land to be calculated on the same basis as the assessable value of any other land in the country. I apologise for occupying the attention of the Committee so long, but I have been dealing with a very difficult subject, and I did feel that my remarks would clear the ground. I may say that I have no desire whatever to delay the passage of this Bill at any stage, and as far as I know there will be no desire on the part of anybody on this side of the House to move unnecessary new Clauses. The points I have indicated, however, will require to be dealt with and considered, and Clauses dealing with them will be put upon the Paper. I believe it will save the time of the House if we are able to utilise the Second Reading of this Bill for this purpose. We have had six or seven days of general discussion on the finance of the country. I do not desire to continue that discussion. I want, as far as possible, to save time and trouble in Committee by broadly stating on the Second Reading the points which will be raised in Committee, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members who have done me the honour of listening to me will know in what direction criticism will come. In conclusion, I wish to say that we have every desire to secure the passage of this Bill with the concessions which it contains, and we hope that we may so add to those concessions in Committee as to make them even more acceptable than they appear to us at the present time.
Mr. RUSSELL REA: I wish to bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I regard as a most remarkable omission in this Bill, namely, the absence of any proposal to adjust the Sugar Duty, and equalise the charge upon home-grown beet sugar and imported beet sugar. An Anglo-Dutch company has established a sugar factory in Yorkshire, aid last year they produced some thousands of tons of white sugar, which they sold in this country in opposition to British manufacturers, and upon this they paid no duty whatever. Really the equalisation of the Customs Duty on an imported article by an Excise Duty on the home-grown or home-manufactured article is an elemen-
328
tary and axiomatic principle of Free Trade. I cannot for the life of me find adequate grounds for this omission, and I should like to know what is the reason for this departure from a fundamental rule. The point was brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for West Islington on 9th January, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"That the matter would be considered in connection with the Budget for next year."
I presume this is next year. This is certainly the next fiscal year. We were extremely surprised to find, in answer to a later question, that the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not his intention to deal with this question in this Budget. I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the home producer is enjoying an enormous and prodigious advantage in being exempted from a high Sugar Duty of 1s. l0d. per cwt. I am told that such an amount is more than the whole cost of running a modern sugar refinery in this country. I am also informed that a sugar refinery can be run upon 1s. 6d. per cwt., and so this firm and others who may follow their example is receiving this enormous benefit. I do not think any Protectionist Government would endow their most favoured industry with such an enormous amount of protection. Any industry which requires for its subsistence so violent a stimulation as that would be better dead. If the Government really think that this is an experiment of a scientific or even of a commercial value, and that this industry is of such value to the State that it deserves encouragement, surely a Grant from the Development Fund is the proper way to deal with it.
It seems to me that a Grant of 6d. or 3d. per cwt. ought to be sufficient to enable it to meet, initial expenses and to establish itself on a healthy financial basis. There may be collateral advantages in regard to this industry. We have been told that it will be an advantage to agriculture and the country generally. I have consulted some agriculturists who have tried the growing of beet for the manufacture of sugar, but they have done so without success, and they tell me that they do not consider the introduction of this industry would be a very great advantage to them. I am told that in countries where beet is grown the industry employs extra labour, but it is only seasonal labour, and it is of a low class. I am also told that beet-growing in this country will have to rely upon a

329
similar kind of labour. I have no doubt that any industry managed with even moderate skill would be highly successful so long as it receives this enormous and unfair fiscal advantage, and I would like my right hon. Friend, if he cannot introduce a fresh tax, even at this period of the Session, at least to make it clear to the House and to those engaged in this enterprise that a parasitic and pauper industry will not be allowed to grow up, based on the robbery of the Exchequer and the consumer.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am glad that the hon. Member opposite has been allowed to say what he has said, because, if it is in order to discuss the Sugar Duty on this Bill, it will also be in order to discuss the Whisky Duty, and it will probably be of value to know that on some future occasion when we are here in reduced numbers. I did not expect this question of the Sugar Duty to be raised, but the Prime Minister, some eighteen months ago in a very remarkable speech, a speech which in my judgment was full of the soundest sense, said that there were exceptional cases—he instituted the very small Grant which we get in Ireland for tobacco, and I am almost positive that he went on to select this very case of beet sugar—in which the Government might under certain circumstances give a bounty, and I heartily agree with him. I almost wish that these Dutch people would come over to Ireland. We would welcome them with open arms. Whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) may say about his speech, I wish to say that in my judgment I have seldom heard a more instructive speech, and although I intend to deal only with one point, namely, Section 13 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, relating to the Reversion Duty, I can confirm every word he said, despite the fact that I approach the matter from a wholly different point of view. I quite agree than the Clauses the right hon. Gentleman has introduced are in mitigation of the Budget, and to that extent he is entitled to every acknowledgment and consideration. I should be very sorry indeed to see anything done to imperil this Bill which in the main I regard as palliating some of the injustices of the Budget. Let me call his attention to the fact that when he deals with this Reversion Duty in Clauses 8 and 9 he entirely forgets, or he has not had brought to his attention, the great severity of the
330
duty in certain Irish cases, not quite parallel perhaps to the cases the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put, but cases which are equally deserving of attention. He admits by this Bill that where the lease was granted for charitable uses Reversion Duty should not be imposed, and he construes that in a very excellent minute which he issued as a White Paper in this way:—
"The benefit to the lessor on which Reversion Duty is payable, depends, roughly speaking, under Section 13 of the 1910 Act, on the difference between the rent obtained at the time the lease was granted and the rent obtainable on the determination of the lease."
I am not at all surprised to hear of the extraordinary results of this tax in certain English cases, but let me give the appalling results of it in Ireland. The House must remember that until the last thirty or forty years it was almost impossible in many parts of the country to induce tenants to build unless they got a lease. The country had been devastated for centuries by various civil commotions and houses were very badly needed in many places. I will take the county Wexford. A great revolution, which Lord Castlereagh doubted whether he could put down although he created it, had devastated Wexford, and there was practically no such thing as any substantial town of Ennis-corthy. The late Lord Portsmouth—I am glad to say that his successors are carrying on the excellent traditions of the family—issued a statement to his tenants, and if any hon. Member wants to see the substance of it and he will go to the "Contemporary Review" or to the "Nineteenth Century" of 1880, about the month of July or August, he will find that it was to the effect that if they would build he would charge them practically nothing and would give them long leases. Accordingly, the present town of Enniscorthy has been built on the promise of the landlord that the tenants' buildings should be respected, and that they could get tenant right at the end of their leases. The town has been erected by the tenants on the faith of the statement of the late Lord Portsmouth some fifty or sixty years ago. Those leases will all fall in before very long—some of them are already falling in—and Lord Portsmouth will be called upon by the tenants to make good his father's word. No Act binds him, because the Land Acts do not apply in towns. In one case which has already occurred Lord Portsmouth renewed the lease at £6 a year, the old rent being only £4. He could, if he had chosen, have charged a rack rent

331
and have got £100 a year. What did the Government do? They came down and said, "Your duty was to charge a rack rent." Accordingly, the Government fined him £80.
What did Lord Portsmouth do? Naturally—there is not one of us who would not have done the same—he turned round to his tenants and said, "Why should I pay £80 for giving you a lease? The Government have got £80 out of me. You must pay it." I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman about it, and it was not denied that the £80 came out of the tenant's pocket. This is supposed to be a tax on the landlord, a Reversion Duty at the end of the lease! Instead of hitting the landlords, it hits the tenants. I will take another town. At Lismore the Duke of Devonshire practically did the same thing. Similarly, the tenants took leases and built houses, and now, when the leases are falling in, because the duke does not charge a rack rent the Government come down and say, "You ought to charge a rack rent, and it is your own fault if you do not. Because some promise was made 100 years ago, is that any reason why the Government should not extract the money out of your pockets? Is there a landlord who cannot say to his tenant, "This is not my fault. I am not imposing this tax upon you. It is the British Government. Pay your tax like an honest man and support the Navy?" The Government by this Clause admit the grievance, but, while admitting it, they confine it to cases of leases granted for charitable purposes. These are the very cases in which relief ought to be granted. Charities can appeal for subscriptions. Hospitals are supported by voluntary subscribers, and they can at all events melt the public heart. But take some tenant, a carter, or a mason, or a labourer, who is looking forward to the end of his lease, trembling. Nothing has occurred to him except that his lease has dropped out. He is no richer to-day than yesterday; he is the same man to-day as he was yesterday, but suddenly his lease drops out. It is an event of which, as a rule, he is unaware because very often he has not got a copy of the lease. The landlord takes the lease out of his safe and goes to him and says, "My boy, your lease has dropped out. I must grant you a new one as my father promised, but the Government want £80 out of me; please write me out a cheque."
332
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has never been able to understand the intensity of our feelings with regard to some of the provisions of his Budget. This is the reason: I venture to think that this amending Clause of his was never sent to the Irish Law Officers at all. That question was asked with regard to the Budget recently by a very eminent Irish judge, Lord Chief Baron Palles, a most experienced and learned man, who at one time was Attorney-General for Ireland, lie said that when he was Attorney-General for Ireland the Government never brought in a Bill without sending it to the Irish Law Officers for their opinion. Has this Bill been sent to the Irish Law Officers for their opinion? I do not think that it has.
Let me refer to the case of Ulster. The Ulster custom, as legalised by Mr. Gladstone, does not apply to towns. I was consulted as to whether I could drive a coach-and-four through Clause 13, and I managed to do so. There was some agriculture about the property, and I got the landlord and tenant to agree to fix a fair rent. A fair rent was fixed as an agricultural holding, though it was not an agricultural holding at all, and we thereby saved about £50. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman docs not want to hit the towns, and I hope, therefore, that he will remove this provision. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that in all the legislation of the past thirty years that has helped Ireland, very vast and valuable legislation, nothing has been done for the Irish towns. The Town Tenants Act was passed three or four years ago, but it was only a warding-off measure. It only said to the landlords, "Keep off the grass." Where the landlord was going to seize the tenants' improvements in houses it prevented him to some extent from taking that course; but the general body of the towns have practically had no advantage from the legislation of the past thirty years, and certainly they have had none of the benefits that have accrued to agriculture.
The last illustration I would give is the case of the towns of Ulster. Many of these towns—take the towns of Derry and Coleraine—were built with English money by the London Corporation and city companies. Many of these have not charged rack rents to their tenants, and I think that it would be a very sore and unfortunate thing if, when leases fall in and the Irish society, as it is called, the body of the London Corporation, which got charters

333
three centuries ago, gave a lease at less than a rack rent, the Government should insist on getting its full pound of flesh. The only other observation I have to make is to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not carry out his promise with regard to the Licensing Clauses. He has never given us any explanation as to why he did not do so. I will not press the matter further to-day, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Clause—which, perhaps, he introduced himself, but, I think, was produced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger)—while admirable as regards Scotland in the relief it gave to certain landlords in that country, has hit the tenant elsewhere in a very severe way. I think that many persons look forward to this Bill as a means of bringing relief to a class of cases which have been hit hard by the Clause of the right hon. Baronet, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give some indication that he will not leave that grievance unredressed.
Mr. FITZROY: The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has referred in his speech chiefly to the effect of the Reversion Duty which the Bill of 1909 imposed. Everybody knew when this Bill was proposed that the effect of the Reversion Duty would fall almost wholly upon the tenants and not upon the land lords. I do not think it is necessary, after the admirable and exhaustive speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who sits below me to go into the details of the various Clauses of the Bill. The few remarks I want to make this afternoon I shall direct to the general principles of the Bill. I think that the whole House and the country must feel that the introduction of this Revenue Bill, as a matter of fact, is a complete confession on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the failure of the 1909–10 Finance Act in regard to the Land Taxes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no doubt very considerable courage of a certain order, and I hope that he will not take it as an impertinence on my part if I suggest to him that he would show very much more courage—having not only ascertained and seen by experience that the legislation is a complete failure— if he acknowledged the fact, and if he did away with those ridiculous taxes and valuations. I only want to refer to two particular parts of this Bill. One is that Clause 5 proposes to exempt small land-owners, that is landowners with small pieces of property which at this present
334
moment are exempt from Income Tax. I am quite prepared to accept that proposal, and, so far as it goes, in exempting these people from the effect of these taxes, I welcome it in the Revenue Bill. But there, again, it is an acknowledgment of the failure of the principle of the Act; because, as the right hon. Gentleman below me said, if it is just to impose these taxes on large landowners it must, on principle, be equally just to impose them on small land owners.
But naturally it will be said, and with a great deal of truth, that there are many people, especially those small landowners, who are incapable of paying these taxes, and it certainly would not be just to impose these burdens upon them. There is a principle entailed in this which I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will acknowledge is rather a dangerous one to carry to any great extent. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who I think only recently have voted for doing away with all indirect taxation. We have a large, a vast majority of the people of this country, who pay no Income Tax at all. Now it is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to exempt those who are subject to this Land Tax. That is all going in the direction of exempting the vast majority of the people of this country from any taxation at all. It does not want anybody of great financial know ledge to realise that if that principle is proceeded with it spells, very likely, national ruin. For this reason, that certainly the tendency to-day, in what I may call a rather vote-catching age, is to hold out inducements, very often of a monetary nature, to the electors to vote for a particular measure because it is going to do them some good, while there will not in any way fall upon them the burden to pay for it. In other words, you are getting the vast majority of the people to vote for spending other people's money. It is a question of public money, it is true, but that money comes out of the pockets of individuals, the minority of the people, and is voted by the majority of the people who do not pay the taxation. As I understand the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, it is dangerous to proceed in this direction, because it must inevitably lead to very greatly increased expenditure, and everybody must acknowledge that at the present time the expenditure is about as high as the nation ought to bear.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer, and it comes under

335
Clause 11, dealing with the valuation of agricultural land. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot be in earnest when he proposes that these deductions from the valuation of agricultural land are only to be calculated for thirty years back! Why thirty years? Is there any reason whatever why it should be thirty, thirty-five, or forty years, or any other period? It is a very common phrase among electioneers, especially in industrial towns, where knowledge of the agricultural land in question is not very considerable, that "God gave the land to the people." It is quite certain that God did not give the land to the people with all the drains, fences, buildings, roads, and so forth upon it. And why it should have been given to them thirty years back, and not beyond thirty years, is a thing I do not understand, because it is quite evident that under this new system of valuation which is to be set up that the valuation of a portion of land twenty-nine years ago, with the deductions up to that date taken from the valuation, will be totally different from the valuation of another portion on a different basis, where the deductions cannot be taken because it is dated thirty-one years back. You will get greater inequalities, if possible, than you do under the present system of valuation.
Moreover, as my right hon. Friend asked, what is the object of this Clause which sets up a valuation which, so far as we can know at the present time, is to be used for no purpose on which we are given information? I think it is pretty apparent from which direction this Clause comes—certainly not from the benches on this side of the House—it is quite evident that it is not with a view to any concession to us that this Clause has been framed. I should imagine that it is framed at the instigation of a certain group of Members on the other side of the House who go in for the single tax or taxation of land values. Evidently that group have seen that if the full deductions are made from the valuations of agricultural land there will be practically no basis for taxation. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to make another column for them upon which their taxation can be based. Naturally, if in respect of agricultural land during the last thirty years deductions are to be taken from those valuations, there will be a great many in respect of which there will be no sort of basis on which to found their
336
taxes. Therefore, I imagine that it is for their benefit that this particular Clause has been introduced.
I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, during the last few months, taken a deeper interest in the land of this country. We understand that he is before long going to introduce a new land scheme, and to enter upon a land campaign. I am very glad that he has been gaining information on this subject, and I hope that he has acquired information, because the agricultural interest up till now has suffered from interference by those who do not know anything about the land question. I am glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has been making himself acquainted with that question. Let me tell him, if he will not think it an impertinence on my part to give him any advice, that what the land really wants is a restoration of confidence, which has been shaken by recent legislation and taxation. Many of the evils which at this present moment are engaging the attention of the country, and this House, such as the housing problem and the deficiency of rural houses, are almost entirely caused by the want of confidence which has been created among those connected with the land, and capital has not been invested in the erection of cottages and so forth. If you can restore confidence you will go a long way towards doing, by that simple process, what you will find it extremely difficult to do by legislation such as is proposed. This Revenue Bill I have no doubt in certain directions is some concession to those who are liable for these taxes; but let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that of which I am quite sure he is very well aware, namely, that the revenue which has been obtained from these taxes has been extremely small, and therefore, it is not exactly the burden of the taxes to which the people connected with the land object—because they are very small indeed—but it is the want of confidence that has been created, and all the bother and trouble that have been caused to them in order to secure the valuation that has been made. I see in this Revenue Bill that at any rate is not dealt with at all, and no concessions are made with regard to the methods of valuation that are at present in vogue. I sincerely hope that the, right hon. Gentleman, as he has begun, if I may use the term, to climb down from the position he took up, that these taxes were absolutely fair and just, will, before long, climb down

337
still further and remove them from the Statute Book.
Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, it does not necessarily follow that a measure is a failure because it requires to be amended. A great deal of the legislation on our Statute Book has gradually grown up by amending legislation, and almost every series of enactments consists of amendments of the original Act. This measure which we are now dealing with amends a Bill which dealt with an extremely complicated question—a new question to a very large extent, and one in connection with which it was obvious that difficulties were bound to arise. It is, indeed, almost impossible to frame any measure in this House that the lawyers cannot twist into a very different shape. This Bill, so far as I understand it, does carry out the original intentions of the Government as expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a perfectly fair comment for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make, that the present difficulties ought to have been foreseen, but we cannot foresee every thing, and, as I have said, the Act does carry out the intentions originally expressed, and does, in practice, do what it was intended to do. Some amendments have been shown by experience to be necessary, and I venture to suggest that, in addition to those which are proposed in this Amending Bill, there are some other amendments which will have to be made to carry out the general intentions of the Government and of the House.
The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate spoke of the Reversion Duty. Undoubtedly there are anomalies there. I am not at all fond of the Reversion Duty, but, even taking it on the basis on which it stands, there are anomalies in connection with it which work out very curiously. It would also seem there is considerable substance in the contention that if you are to allow for improvements you should not limit it in the improvement created during the last thirty years. There is no justice or principle in that. If it is limited, as in the case where the house is of more value than the land, that surely is based on no sound principle whatever! I have always felt about the great Budget, of which this is an Amendment, that it was far too complicated, and that in many respects the resulting valuation is absurd. We have been told, and we shall be told again and again, that so many thousands of these valuations have been made and that so
338
very few of them have been objected to. I have had some little experience of them. I know of a good many, and I venture to submit that they are not objected to, not because the people agree with them and accept them, but because they do not know what to do with them. They cannot make them out, and in any part of the country where you have the leasehold system nobody connected with that property knows quite what to do with the valuation.
Everyone knows that the ground rent in the majority of cases is an arbitrary amount, but it does not necessarily, and frequently it does not at all, represent the actual value of the land. It is a simple charge on the property, and it may represent double or even three times the value of the land. When you have got the valuation you get in it the value of the land, the value of the buildings, and the value of the total property, but, as it is a leasehold property, there is no single person in existence at the moment who represents any one of these interests. The owner of the ground rent does not know what the value of the land is. The valuation gives the value of the land alone, but his ground rent may represent something double the value of the land. It is quite a common thing where you have two houses, one alongside the other, for the ground rent on one to be five times the amount of the ground rent on the other. It does not affect his ground rent at all, and, therefore, he does not know what to make of the valuation. When the leaseholder gets the valuation he sees that the building on the land is valued, but that building is not his property. All the property he has is what is left over after the ground rent is paid, and, as the ground rent represents more than the value of the ground, his interest is represented by nobody. Therefore you get three valuations that do not represent anything that anybody owns, and, as I have said, the people do not know what to make of it. That is why they do not object.
Another thing is that it is not a very interesting process to come into conflict with the Government. To fight it is a very expensive business, and, therefore, men would rather let the matter slide. That is what occurs. The fact that there are so few appeals does not mean that the valuations are considered satisfactory. I have always felt, in connection with this business, it would have been far better to I have valued the land alone—the site alone

339
—and nothing else. Value the land and do not attempt to value the buildings in connection with it, and then charge the increment on the change in the value of the land. But when you start by valuing the whole property, and then pretend to arrive at the value of the land by deducting the value of the buildings, you are in a quagmire. That is the process of the Act. It is not the process of the officials, and it would have been, in my judgment, far better to have left out the buildings and to have valued the land alone. I feel very strongly that in all this legislation that should have been the policy, and that is why I welcome this Bill because it is an amendment and an improvement. You need to protect the taxpayer against the officials. Once you pass an Act here the officials take no notice of what your intentions may have been, unless those intentions are absolutely expressed in the words of the Act. They are quite right. Their duty is to administer the law and they may know nothing about your intentions. If you tell them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised certain things, they politely reply that they know nothing about those promises, and that they have to administer the law embodied in the Act. But being human, like the rest of us, they make the most they can of revenue under the Act, and they are very apt, in every direction, to press it very hardly against the taxpayer and often very unjustly.
I will, if I may venture to do so, give an illustration of how the law works. It is not in connection with land valuation. The Inland Revenue authorities for some years charged Income Tax on annuities granted by insurance companies to persons who had purchased them, and the companies, when they paid out the annuity, deducted Income Tax upon it from the person to whom they paid it. The Inland Revenue authorities made the company pay Income Tax on that annuity. But the annuity in these eases represented the interest on invested capital which had already paid Income Tax. The companies had to pay Income Tax on the interest earned on their invested capital, and when they granted the annuities out of that interest the Inland Revenue authorities made them pay the Income Tax again on the annuity. They thus had to pay twice over, and the Inland Revenue authorities took no notice of their protest. Eventually, however, the case was taken into Court. It is not everybody who can
340
take these cases into Court, because they are usually run up to the House of Lords, and it is a very expensive business. It was, however, done in this case, and it was decided by the Courts that the levying of Income Tax on the annuity was illegal. They asked for their money back! Did they get it? Not a bit of it. The reply was, "It was decided to be illegal to levy it. If you have not paid the tax, we shall not now press for payment. If you paid it under protest, we will refund it. But if you paid it without protest, it was a mistake in law, it was a misunderstanding of the law, and we are precluded from refunding it." What would any honest tradesman have done if he had received money which was not due and which he had no right to? He would have given it back again. He would not have hidden himself behind the devices of the law in order to evade restoring money which he had unjustly and illegally taken. I have given that illustration in order to show the attitude of the officials of the Department towards the taxpayer, and I repeat that in these matters we need to be exceptionally careful to guard the taxpayer.
My general view of the policy of the Act which we are now amending by this Bill is that the Increment Duty on the increased value of land is a perfectly sound, legitimate, and justifiable tax. I have no hesitation in saying that, but I think we might get at it in a simpler way than we do at present. It has been suggested that there is a loss on the valuation. I think that is a futile suggestion or argument. Everybody will admit that if we had begun 50 or 100 years ago with this legislation we should now be deriving a very handsome revenue from the increment which has taken place in the value of the land. But we decided that we could not go back on the past, and, consequently, as we were only going to collect the increment of the future, we had to incur the whole cost of the valuation to begin with. Nobody imagined that there was going to be a great increment in value in twelve months or five years. It is a gradual and slow process. The cost of the valuation is, so to speak, a capital investment. We shall get the benefit of the increment value as the population grows and as the value of the land of the country increases. It is possible that alterations may be made. It may have been suggested some revenue could have been got in much more quickly than has been the case, but that does not matter much. We are getting the valuation which will be the basis of a substantial revenue

341
in the future. With regard to the proposal to exempt small people from this tax, I remember very well that when the Budget of 1909 was first introduced one of the criticisms I ventured to make most strongly upon it was with regard to the extent to which it would harass and worry a very large number of small people with very little result. Therefore, I am very glad indeed to see the smaller people relieved in this way, not so much because of the amount of the relief to them, but because the whole thing is not worth while. The revenue is not worth the harass and worry attending it. It is not a matter of principle but of expediency to relieve them. I should view with a good deal of jealousy the suggestion of hon. Members opposite to extend this. We do not want to extend it very far, or else we soon get into the region where there is revenue to be got which would be well worth while collecting. I therefore hope the exemption will be limited to the small cases and to small people. You may say there is an element of electioneering in it. It is not wise to make taxes unduly oppressive, and unduly objection able. It would be quite as possible to say that there is electioneering in exempting people from Income Tax. This is a matter of general equity and also of expediency, and on that ground I welcome it, but I quite agree that it needs to be carefully watched and carefully guarded, so that you do not get beyond the point where it is a grievance.
Mr. ROYDS: The right hon. Gentle man who has just sat down said that he thought the valuation as a capital expenditure was a good investment. He said that at the end of his speech, but in the middle of his speech he described the valuation as absurd. We on this side quite agree that if a really good valuation could be obtained for the expenditure of a reasonable sum of money it would be worth while to spend that money. The point we desire to make and have always made is that the valuation now proceeding is absolutely worthless, there fore the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Whittaker) was quite right when he characterised it as absurd. He said that he welcomed the Bill, but I should like to point out to him that there is nothing whatever in the Bill which amends the valuation. All the bad effects of the valuation remain, and a new and further valuation of agricultural land is being set up. When we are considering a Bill which
342
authorises this further expenditure, I might recall to the House the position with regard to the expenditure upon this valuation and the revenue produced from this scheme of taxation. This is the fifth year this scheme of taxation has been in operation. After five years, apart from arrears, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has budgeted to receive from all these taxes the sum of only £205,000. Of that sum no less than £100,000 comes from the Reversion Duty, for which purpose the valuation is not needed at all. This valuation is therefore, being proceeded with, and is being extended under this Bill, for the purpose of collecting the sum of only £105,000. Under the provisions of the Bill a new valuation is to be set up. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated a few weeks ago that the present valuation would be completed as at 31st March, 1915, when the capital expenditure would come to an end, and he said that by that time we should have spent £2,800,000. Under one of the Clauses of this Bill the new valuation is only to begin as soon as may be after the 31st March, 1915. Therefore, it is quite clear that his estimate of the cost is quite fallacious, and that this valuation will be proceeding for an indefinite period.
Last week I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had ever made any estimate of what this valuation cost the owners. He replied that he had not taken that matter into consideration, and that he could not make an estimate. An estimate has been made by others, and the cost to the owners is put at, at least, the equivalent to the cost to the State. I do not think that is an overestimate. Therefore, in asking the owners of agricultural land to submit to a further valuation to begin after the 31st March, 1915, the Government are asking owners of agricultural land to submit to a further very heavy burden. There are only two Clauses to which I wish to draw special attention. Clause 2 deals with the Lumsden case. The history of that Clause is something of this sort: claims were or have been made for fortuitous windfalls when property was sold for more than it was worth. Those claims were only made possible in consequence of some White Paper instructions which were issued. Had those White Paper instructions not been issued, these claims could never have been made. The claim arises in this way: property is sold at a given price, say £750; the Government valued came and valued it, and said it was worth only £650, that, therefore,

343
it had been sold for £100 more than it was worth, and that the £100 was in the nature of a fortuitous windfall. Clause 2 of this Bill prohibits, or purports to prohibit claims being made for fortuitous windfalls in respect to composite property—that is houses and land together—when the property is sold for more than it is worth. The principle of the Act was that the IncrementValue on the occasion should be based on the purchase price obtained, and the Act says that the site value is to be calculated on the occasion from the purchase price.
Under Clause 2 of this Bill the purchase price is ignored altogether, and in respect to composite properties the increment is to be calculated between two valuations made by the Government valuer, without regard to the price at all—the difference between the original site value and the value which he places on it upon the occasion of the sale. The value he places on it upon the occasion of the sale may have no relation whatever to and have nothing to do with the purchase price. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the effect of that alteration is not this: At the present time you can claim Increment Duty when the property is sold for more than it is worth. The object of this Clause is to prevent that being done in respect to composite property, but if increment can be calculated between two values without any regard to the purchase price, then the Government valuer on the occasion may say that the property has been sold for less than it was worth and place a higher value upon it than that for which it was sold. Increment Value Duty can, therefore, be claimed in that case when a property is sold for less than it is worth. If due consideration is given to the Clause, it will be seen that the effect of it is simply this: Whereas at the present time you can claim Increment Value Duty when the property is sold for more than it is worth, after the Bill has been passed you will be able to claim Increment Value Duty when it is sold for less than it is worth.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The Clause as drafted contains the words:—
"If the person chargeable with duty so requires."
It is not a compulsory substitution of one valuation for another: it is intended as a concession in a case where the person
344
chargeable with the duty desires this to be substituted for the other.
Mr. ROYDS: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am quite aware of those words.
Sir J. SIMON: I beg your pardon; I thought you were not.
Mr. ROYDS: They do not help the matter at all, because the subject, that is the taxpayer, on the occasion of a sale has no idea what value the Government valuer is going to place on the property; whether he is going to value it high or low, or whether he is getting a good price or a bad price in the opinion of the Government valuer. The purchase price has had nothing to do with it in the past. The cause of these claims is that the Government valuer has disregarded the purchase price, and whether the property has been sold for more than it is worth, or whether it has been sold for less than it is worth, does not matter. It is true that the subject may claim either mode of valuation, but he does not in the least know which will suit him. I think he will be in the cart whichever course he adopts. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Clause requires further consideration. If the subject does take advantage of it, it enables claims to be made for Increment Value Duty when there has been a loss. The object of the Clause is largely to restore confidence, which we are all most desirous of doing. If the object of the Government is to be met as regards composite properties, I think they should with draw their White Paper instructions. Then the objection of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last will also be met, because he wishes this Clause to apply not only to composite property, but to all forms of land, whether composite property or otherwise. That would be carrying out the representations of the Government when the Act was first introduced into this House.
6.0 P.M.
With regard to the new valuation of agricultural land, I do not know whether the House quite realises that that is not an amendment of the present method of valuing agricultural land. It does not remove any of the grievances we have continually urged from this side of the House, but leaves them in exactly the same position. It leaves recorded against agricultural land two false site values—a false full site value, and a false assessable site value—and it now proposes to add a third false site value. The Clause does

345
not give it any name except site value. I do not know what it in to be called, or for what purpose it is to be used, but, at any rate, you are seeking here to record against agricultural land a third untrue or false site value, the purpose of which we know nothing about. The purpose for which it is going to be used we are not told anything about. I hope the House will pause before they sanction such a course as that. What we want done and what ought to be done is to make the present values which have been authorised as reliable as we can. What is affecting the credit of land and of all forms of property is having recorded against it these false valuations. That is at the bottom of the loss of credit and it is the reason why capital has been withdrawn from the land. All these values are recorded in this Doomsday Book, and no owners or lenders of money know what they mean or how they are going to be used. They are none of them consistent with each other and the result is that this valuation is ridiculous. But beyond that it is most damaging. The valuation and the correcting of the method of valuation is the most important matter to be dealt with, and it is at the root of the whole of the loss of credit of the land. That is one matter which this Bill disregards altogether. The valuation is to proceed on the old bad lines. These untrue values are to be recorded in the Doomsday Book and a third and new site value is to be recorded in addition. I am perfectly satisfied—and I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ex pert advisers would advise him to the same effect—that it is absolutely impossible to ascertain the true site value of agricultural land under the methods laid down in that Act. By any process of deduction such as those laid down, you arrive at the most absurd results. Here is a valuation of six adjoining pieces of land in Yorkshire. I had the site value valued by the best valuer I could get in Yorkshire in order to test it. He says that all these site values, if they were correctly ascertained, are of precisely the same value, and that opinion was confirmed by another. This is the Government valuer's valuation. NO. 1 is brought out at £10 an acre site value; NO. 2 at £30; NO. 3 at £19; NO. 4 at £48; NO. 5 at £16, and NO. 6 at £48.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Are they all of equal size?
Mr. ROYDS: That is per acre. They are all adjoining sites. The valuation was
346
carried out by one Government valuer, and this is a copy of the figures which are taken from the valuation. That is the result which must be arrived at if you follow the method laid down in the Finance Act. You cannot be surprised, that being the state of affairs, that the credit of land has been shaken. No one knows to what purpose these values are going to be put. They do not produce anything, of course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that agricultural land is practically exempt from any of the duties imposed by the Finance Act, so that it is not for the purpose of those duties. Then for what purpose is it? People are alarmed; they see these totally false values being recorded throughout the length and breadth of the land. This House is voting £700,000 a year for the purpose of ascertaining these use less site values, which are shaking the credit of the greatest asset we have in this country. It is about time the House of Commons looked into this matter and woke up. Hon. Members opposite do not like, I suppose, to attempt to upset this so-called great scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not think they ought to commit the country to spending £700,000 a year and to inflicting this damage on land without satisfying themselves that a proper valuation is being made, and every hon. Member who speaks opposite, when he has had occasion to look into his valuations, says it is absurd and worthless, or words to that effect, and yet we tamely and calmly meet week after week and go on supporting this proposal for carrying out this absurd valuation, and by this Bill not only are we asked to continue this valuation, but to extend it for a further period of years and to set up a new valuation which, when it is completed, will be even more worthless than the present one.
Mr. M'CURDY: I think the provisions of this Bill, when passed into law, will give very great satisfaction in the country. There is no doubt that for the last three or four years an organisation known as the Land Union, of whose operations I do not desire to make the slightest complaint, has been very active in informing the country at large, not on the merits or demerits of the taxes contained in the 1909 Budget, so far as the principle of those taxes is concerned, but with regard to such cases of hardship as could be found, to show that in their actual operation some injustice might be inflicted here and there upon this or that member of the community. The Bill makes no inroad at all

347
upon the principle that it is right and expedient that the State should take for itself a portion at least of any increment in land which is due to social causes, to the expenditure and enterprise of the community at large, and which owes nothing to any expenditure or enterprise on the part of the owner. That might have been a disputable principle in the past when John Stuart Mill laid down that it would be wise and politic for the State to take the whole of such increment, but to-day it is not really seriously contested in any part of the House. It is not the principle of the Budget of 1909 which has been in any way shaken by the criticisms of the Land Union. What we are here to rectify, so far as experience shows it to be necessary, are the methods by which in the Budget of 1909 the technical advisers of the Government thought it would be well to endeavour to carry those principles into effect. The method devised was a very simple one, that if you started by getting a valuation of the land in this country as on 30th April, 1909, as the datum line, then, after making due allowance for any expenditure or works executed on the part of the owner after that date, you might safely take the purchase price upon any future sale as showing what increment there had been in the value of the land between those two dates.
It is not suggested that experience has shown that there is anything very wrong about, that method or that that method does not provide a perfectly safe and workable method of ascertaining the increment in the case of bare land. It is quite easy in the case of land which has not been built upon to make the necessary deductions for any small expenditure made upon it, and it is quite clear in the case of bare land that the price is very apt to correspond with, or furnish a criterion of the value at any given date. What the Budget of 1909 did, however, was to apply the same method of discovering what increment had taken place in the value of bare land, to eases where the Land was covered by buildings which might be many times in excess of the value of the land upon which they stood, and it was in these cases that it has been found that to take the price paid for the composite subject upon the occasion of the sale as a criterion by which you are to determine whether there has been an increase in the site value is a method which in practice results in occasional profits being sometimes swept into
348
the net of the tax collector when there has been no true increment arising from the social causes to which I have referred. That hardship is swept away entirely by Clause 2 of the Bill which provides that in. all cases in future where the land has been developed by houses being built upon it to the extent of the buildings being worth as much as the land, if there is any doubt in the mind of the person who has to pay the tax as to the price which he has received upon the occasion of sale being a fair criterion from his point of view bringing out a fair and just result as to what tax should be paid, he may have a valuation of the land so that there can be no doubt whatever that no claim can be made upon him except in respect of the rise in the value of the bare land which is due neither to any expenditure on his part nor to any rise or recovery in the value of the building.
That is important because it entirely removes the apprehension which is undoubtedly felt by a large class of small owners of freehold and leasehold property in our towns, people who have bought one house or two for their own occupation or as an investment through their building society and who have been told consistently by the Land Union, and I do not say wholly incorrectly, that under the provisions of the 1909 Budget, though there has been no real rise in the value of the land on which those houses stood, still, upon the occasion of the sale, if there was a mistake in the figures of the original valuation, or if there was any cash profit made by them upon the house, they might find themselves liable to a claim for duty which certainly did not fall within the principles upon which the Budget of 1909 had been explained in this House and commended to the country. This Bill will entirely sweep away that cause for apprehension on the part of investors in small house property, shops or buildings. They will, when Clause 2 is carried into effect, have a complete assurance that they need have no apprehension of any claim in respect of increment taxes being made unless there has been a rise in the value of the bare land on which their buildings stand and a profit at least five times the amount of the tax which the Government seeks to impose.
Then there was the other case, the Lumsden case, which disclosed the fact which had been pointed out on this side of the House as well as on the other some years ago, that cases might arise, owing

349
to the method of assessing the tax which was selected by the technical advisers of the Government in 1909, in which not merely a rise in the value of the land but the trade profit of the builder might be made assessable to the tax. It is perfectly clear that such cases have been extremely infrequent. So far as I am concerned, I have only heard of one case, and yet the Lumsden case makes one think that there might have been more cases than there have been. That case revealed the fact that it was possible to tax builders' profits. Clause 2 of this Bill makes a case like that of Mr. Lumsden absolutely impossible in future. Mr. Lumsden was a builder who was so fortunate as to make a profit of 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. out of bricks and mortar, and on that profit the Government made a small claim. Whatever the profits of Mr. Lumsden or others may be in future, no claim can be made by the Government on the ground of the large and fortuitous profits that have been made while there is no rise in the bare value of the land. The Bill provides that so far as builders and land developers are concerned, even although the land be rising in value, due to causes wholly unconnected with the development of an estate, not due to any expenditure or enterprise on the part of the building owner, the parties engaged in developing estates are exempt from claims upon the rise in land from purely social causes during the period of building development. I am glad that this Bill does completely remove, in my judgment, those two very practical and serious grievances—one on the part of investors in small house property and small houses generally, and the other on the part of builders who in some conceivable circum stances might make profits which might be taxed under the guise of the Increment Tax.
I entirely agree with the hon Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) that we are all in favour of the Increment Tax, but we should like to see the tax in a more simple form than it is in the Budget of 1909. Although it is out side the scope of this Bill, find outside of any hope on my part that this is a matter likely to be dealt with on the occasion of this Bill, I hope the Government will not lose sight of the fact that Amendments such as this Bill contains removing anomalies which working experience has shown to exist in the Clauses of the Finance Act of 1909–10, will never be
350
wholly satisfactory as providing a proper basis upon which the increase in the value of land due to social causes may be taxed, not merely to the extent of 20 per cent., but to any extent to which future Chancellors of the Exchequer may deem it reasonable or necessary to resort to. I would point out to the representatives of the Government who are now present that the Act of 1910 contains within itself the outline of a much simpler system both of assessing and collecting this Increment Tax, without irritation to the taxpayer and without uncertainty as to the amount. Undoubtedly the most important kind of lands for the purposes of the Increment Tax are lands which are known as undeveloped lands—lands which have passed, out of the stage of being merely agricultural lands, and which have acquired a value for building purposes, though not yet built upon—in other words, suburban lands of all the great towns of this country. As regards these lands, it is already provided in the Act of 1910 that there shall be a periodic valuation once in five years; and as regards lands in the hands of corporations, a similar valuation is provided for the purpose of assessing Increment Tax. So far as undeveloped land is concerned, as soon as the first quinquennial valuation is arrived at we shall be in this position: We shall have obtained under the original valuation the datum line as to what it was worth in 1909, and we shall learn by the subsequent periodic valuation what the land is worth in 1916, or whatever occasion the House may fix for that valuation. When that is done the true increment will have been ascertained by valuation. I say the true increment, because one can only obtain the true increment, not by valuing an isolated plot, but by valuing the land as you find it in blocks, streets and districts. The increase in the value of the land which is not due to the execution of works by the owner, but due to communal causes, is a thing which is not found in an isolated plot here and there, but it is an increase common to a great number of plots occupying a similar position.
Therefore, the quinquennial valuation will give, really and accurately, the true valuation and the true increase in the value owing to communal causes since the land was last valued, and if at some future day the Increment Tax should be simplified by the ascertainment of the increment being confined to those periods when the quinquennial valuation is made, the taxes to be

351
paid during the next quinquennial period could be then fixed in respect of sales which might arise in the next five years. The great advantage of that would be that the subject would then know when selling or transferring a lease, or otherwise, what tax he had to take into consideration in makng his bargain—a thing which he can never know with accuracy under the present system. The suggestion I have ventured to make for the further simplification of these taxes in future does not in any way, in my view, detract from the merits of the proposals now brought forward as practical proposals which do remedy every genuine case of hardship, for all substantial purposes, which has been brought to my notice during the last three and a half years, during which I have taken an interest in the working of these taxes.
Mr. BOYTON: After the strenuous fight the Government put up they are to be congratulated at last upon having climbed down to some extent by means of this Amending Bill, and I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies, although practically the Bill only touches the fringe. Hon. Members on the other side have dwelt this afternoon on the relief to be given to small owners of property, but the relief is not sufficient. There is nothing said in this Bill about relieving people from the hundred and one vexations of administration. Building societies' property has been referred to, and I am reminded that one of the most eminent gentlemen connected with building societies, Mr. E. J. Wood, secretary and managing director of the Temperance Building Society, in addressing a meeting of building societies a short time ago, dealt very fully indeed with the difficulties under which small owners of properly are labouring, and the difficulties particularly which are met with in the building societies. Mr. Wood expressed his intention during his speech of telling the Government what he thought generally of the position as affecting the owners of property taken from building societies. He spoke at some length, and his remarks were so pertinent to the various points raised this afternoon that I shall gove the House some extracts from his very valuable contribution for fear they might be lost. While he appealed to a very large section of the public, yet it is very desirable that his opinions should
352
be placed upon the records of this House. He began by saying that the Act imposes upon owners of property on transfer an expenditure for which the nation is not now obtaining, and never will obtain, an adequate return. He asks, "What are the requrements of administration?" On the sale of a leasehold property the vendor has to supply either an abstract of the lease or a copy of the lease, and an abstract of the assignment, or a copy of the assignment. In the case of freehold similar information is required, and in practice it is easier and cheaper to supply copies than mere abstracts, because abstracting requires experience for the purpose of preparation. It is only he who knows what is important in a deed who can make an abstract. The cost of this generally works out a guinea to a guinea and a half. That occurs in every dealing with property of this class. Mr. Wood says that in connection with this the expenditure incurred by vendors, members of his own society, and others to meet the general requirements of the Board of Inland Revenue in the direction indicated represents no less than £400 a year, and he doubts if the Board of Inland Revenue has received a £10 note during the whole of that time.
Nothing is said in this Bill about relieving small owners of property from these administrative expenses. It is a subject to which I think the Government should pay particular attention. The costs of conveyance are heavy enough on all occasions, but in connection with this Act obligations have been put upon societies to supply abstracts or copies of leases, and they have to incur very considerable expense. I think that in this connection particularly they might under this Act get some relief. I am sorry that there is no proposal in the Bill to repeal, or even amend Section 2 of the Finance Act of 1912. In the early hours of the morning towards the end of last Session, there was passed an Amendment which enabled the holders of untied licensed property to charge their landlords with a proportion of the increased duty. That has worked out in a very extraordinary manner. The holder of premises let at, say, £50 a year, in the sense that he has bought a profit rent of £50 in the open market, finds himself cast in a contribution of perhaps as much as £150 or £160. I ask the House to realise what that means—to buy a profit rent of £50 in the open market and to be asked to pay towards the Licence Duty levied by the Government a contribution

353
to the holder of the licensed house of some thing like £150 or £160. As this seems to be entirely overlooked, because I do not hear of it in any quarter of the House, for the information of the House I might take the following example. Rent paid to lessor £105 a year. Premium paid for lease reduced to annual value £664, total £769, less estimated rental value of property unlicensed £120, total increase of rent paid in respect of licence £649. The amount of additional licence duty is £190, and then the lessor's proportion is 649–769ths or £160, and the immediate lessor of the brewery on whom the claim is made is not the freeholder. He has bought an improved leasehold rent of the house on the same terms as the brewery has it of £50 in 1907. He received from the brewery £105, and they ask him to pay £160.
Surely something must be wrong when a Government Department does not attempt to deal with an anomaly of this kind. It is one of the most pressing things and has been ventilated in the Press I do not know whether it has got into the High Courts yet, but at all events there are several judgments in the County Courts imposing these penalties on the people who did not touch the original premium. They did not receive the premiums which passed when dealing with this licensed property, but they bought perhaps £50 or £60 or £100 a year as profit arising from licensed promises thinking that by so doing they were buying a safe investment. There is a case here recited of a poor widow actually buying £50 a year who would have to pay £50 back to the lessee of the public-house. An extraordinary anomaly of this kind which was created in the early hours of the morning in the latter part of last Session, should be redressed at once, and I cannot conceive the Law Officers knowing what is going on in connection with this anomaly, doing nothing to remedy it. It is a standing disgrace to the administration of the Government that such a state of things has not been attended to. Attempts are made in this Bill somewhat to improve matters in connection with Reversion Duty, but they cannot be improved except by a very simple machinery—only the profit accruing to the individual is to be assessed for duties. At present a perfectly hypothetical valuation is made of what was the value of the property many years ago. To show how grotesque the thing is, instead of having the duty raised on the actual benefit received, on the one hand I can cite a case
354
where I have been asked to pay £90 for selling a lease back to my freeholder, because the Government said I sold it for more than what it was worth, and, on the other hand, I had to pay £90 for letting a property for less than it was worth.
We are dealing with certain property, particulars of which I should like to give to the representative of the Government (Mr. Hobhouse). I am pleased to see him here on an occasion like this, because I remember his strenuous battles when he was connected with the Treasury. Briefly, the valuers said that instead of £205 a year as rent for a property we should have charged the tenant £300, and because we did not do that we had to pay £90 duty. The person I represent was a lessee, not a freeholder, and probably the value of the benefit accruing to him for a surrender and reletting was about £162, and the capital value of his property was not in creased more perhaps than £300, and if the true scale were adopted he would have had to pay, as his leaseholder's proportion, something like £7 10s. only. Instead of that this unfortunate person had to pay £90. Here is a case to which the proposed Amendment dealing with the Section does not apply. It is one of these scandalous anomalies that really should receive proper attention, and it can never be put right unless by a simple method you do really assess the benefit which does accrue to the individual and charge then 10 percent, on the money which he puts in his pocket, and not on the purely hypothetical estimate of what you think he should have put in his pocket. Several speakers have dealt at great length with the injury that has been done to the property market by the Act. I am afraid that the Amendments do not go far enough, but such as they are, they will be accepted with pleasure, perhaps in a spirit of gratitude, which is defined as a hope of further favours to come.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I think that some of the criticisms which have been passed on what is called in this measure the principal Act have not been quite justified. After all, the great Finance Act, which laid the foundations of the land valuation, was, in a sense, a pioneer mea sure, and it was only to be expected that various flaws should be found sooner or later, and the House, on all sides, I think, is very pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have brought in a measure which, in many ways, will make those

355
provisions better than they have been before. But when I welcome this measure as one who has been associated with the land values movement, I would like to express my regret at not finding some better provision for ascertaining what is known as the full site value of land. If we ever have, as we hope we shall have, an improved rating system, it is common ground, I think, that it must be based on full site value, and, therefore, it is most desirable that we should have the full site value. I sympathise to a considerable extent with some of the criticisms coming from hon. Members on the other side on the present definition of a full site value. You have the gross value, less deductions, deductions for buildings, structures, and various things of that sort, all those things which are distinguishable from the land, but as we have been hearing, there are a, great many other things which are not so physically distinguishable from the land, such as works of reclamation, drain age, and sea walls. These are very important improvements, though it is difficult to distinguish them from the land, and yet there is no allowance made for these in foil value site as a basis. I quite agree that to some extent they come under paragraph 3 of Sub-section (4), which is proposed to be dealt with by the eleventh Clause of this Bill, but my point is they are not dealt with under full site value, and they ought to be dealt with under full site value, if that full site value is ever to be anything like a basis for rating. I myself can draw no economic distinction between improvements like houses and buildings, which are physically distinguishable from the land, and improvements like sea walls and works of reclamation which are merged in the land. The only difference is that they cannot be estimated in quite the same way, and here I come to an extraordinary point which has been made by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. They seem to object to this thirty years' limit, but it seems to me that in ascertaining how much of the present value of the site is due to such improvements as these you must take some time limit. You cannot, for instance, go back to the days of Noah or to the days of the Norman Conquest.
Take, for instance, the case of Westminster. A great part of Westminster was built on land which was more or less reclaimed from a marsh away back in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. How could one possibly, in attempting to value
356
the site value of a piece of land in Westminster, go into the question of how far that was due to reclamation that was done in the thirteenth century? It could not be done. We have got to take some satisfactory and some practical way, and the practical way is to go back for a certain time. I know that questions may be raised as to the time, but I would like to remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House that at present all improvements are rated, and if we could go back thirty or even twenty years we would have an improved system of rating and make a very great improvement on the present system, which rates all improvements. When I was a Member of the Select Committee on the Land Values (Scotland) Bill we had evidence from one gentleman who had carried out consider able reclamation along the shore of the Firth of Forth, opposite the proposed site of the Rosyth Docks, and he complained, that when the reclamation was there effected, and as soon as he had reclaimed the land and improved it by reclamation, up went the assessment and the rates; and I put it to hon. and right hon. Gentle men opposite that if we were to exempt even for thirty years, as suggested by that measure, that would encourage improvement in reclamation in a way in which it is not encouraged now. There is another point about this Clause 11 which I would like to mention. It seems to be limited to agricultural land, but from the point of view of those associated with the Land Values movement we wish to draw no hard and fast distinction between agricultural land and other land. It seems to me that whatever is the value of the land the same general principles ought to apply, and those general principles are that we should exempt as far as possible all those improvements which are distinguished from the land, and that in the case of those improvements which merge in the land we should exempt them by going back for a certain time. I do not go into the question of the number of years, though I think that thirty years is sufficient, but we should go back for a certain time and frank all the improvements which have been made since then. I do not say that it is a perfect system, but it is an eminently workable system, and would give good results.
I should like also to point out that under this franking system what you want to encourage is improvements in the future. The economic effect is mainly felt as

357
regards future improvements, and it would seem that for that thirty years would be sufficient. I should like the House in considering these questions which have been raised in connection with full site value, and also in connection with improvements referred to in Section 11, to realise that it is important to bear in mind that we are not merely dealing with the Land Taxes in the Finance Act, but that to a great extent we are laying the foundation for a still wider reform. If we were only dealing with the taxes of the Finance Act there might be some ground for the criticism that the expenditure in pre paring the way for those taxes has been very great. Those who make that criticism should remember that while those valuations are, so to speak, capital expenditure of a permanent character, their use is felt, not only now, but will continue to be felt years after they have been completed. On further consideration we hope, sooner or later, that those valuations may utilised for this form of rating to exempt, as far as possible, improvements, and to rate, as far as possible, improvements on the market value of the land. I put that forward now in no controversial spirit, because, as is well known, there are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who, while they did not approve of the particular proposal of the great Finance Act, nevertheless are pledged to the franking of improvements as far as may be, and also, as far as possible, to a system of rating land on its real unimproved value. Those considerations should be borne in mind in the work which we hope to do in this Revenue Bill, and for the present we certainly hope that this Bill will have the effect of simplifying and improving the working of the land, while at the same time it prepares the way for a still larger measure.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: The hon. Member who has just spoken has devoted most of his speech to a consideration of Clause 11,and has expressed his surprise that that Clause should be extended to dealing with agricultural land. Urban land is already dealt with in the great Budget, as he calls it, of 1910, and Clause 11 is designed to put agricultural land in the same position as urban land now occupies in the scheme. The intention, as I understand it, is to put those two values on an identical footing so far as the different deductions are concerned. You get a full site value fixed for both. My complaint about Clause 11 is that it is not going to get the proper valuation of agri-
358
cultural land, and it is not going to place agricultural land on the same footing as urban land. The other day, when we were discussing this matter, I said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the floor of the House that he would probably find, in dealing with agricultural land, it would be acceptable to this side of the House if he adopted the Clause as finally settled in the Land Values (Scotland) Act, which was passed in 1907. In that Act, as originally introduced, there was the time limit of twenty years placed on improvements. We riddled that proposal and the Government ran away from their own proposition, and substituted a more reason able and proper form of words. They took out the limitation altogether. The words in the original Clause were, "Where such work has been executed, not more than twenty years preceding." Those words were taken out, and the following "words were substituted in the Act: "Where the benefit thereof is unexhausted at the time of valuation." That is a reasonable and sensible form of words.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Without any time limit.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Certainly, without any time limit. Why should there be any? Who is going to build a sea wall to reclaim two or three hundred acres of land, if the whole cost of building is to be confiscated in twenty or thirty years. Nobody is such a fool as to do that, yet there are thou sands of acres of agricultural land in Scot land whose value depends on the building of that wall. Therefore, in dealing with those particular farms regard would be had to whatever was unexhausted value in that particular wall defending that land for the purpose of agriculture. It is a simple proposition. I have a case in my own country whore there is a particular plot of land extremely difficult to drain. We have enormous arterial drains placed there with 15 or 18-inch iron pipes. Does anyone suggest that the value of those pipes is exhausted in thirty years. Would anyone be foolish enough to put them in if they were only to last thirty years? Some of the smaller subsidiary drains are not even exhausted in the thirty years, let alone those big drains. The whole thing is ridiculous. The Clause has been drafted by somebody who knows nothing about the subject, and who apparently does not understand what the cost of those improvements is and how necessary they are for the purposes of the farm and retaining the land in agriculture. The right

359
hon. Gentleman, if he will take an example from the wisdom of his predecessors, and I am sure he is not above that, will take that Clause as it stands. I remember he once said to me that I regarded it as an extract from a family Bible. However that may be, in this case I think if he would regard it from something like that point of view he would get out of any difficulty with this side of the House and would find the Clause fairly acceptable for defining agricultural land and the agricultural improvements to be dealt with. I would suggest he should look into this matter. I have no doubt I shall myself put an Amendment on the Paper to embody these words or something like them in the Clause as it now stands.
There is then the question of the exemption of the smaller owners under Clause 5. I am very glad to see that exemption and all the other ameliorating proposals which are made in this measure. I would remind those who believe in the principle of the rating of land values that Clause 5 gives away the whole of that principle anyhow. The moral principle, if there is one, involved in the taxation of land values and in the alteration of the present rate from the composite value to land value is knocked to pieces by Clause 5. If it ever gets a resurrection in this House it is not likely to be a glorious one. The last point to which I wish to refer is with regard to Section 2 of the Act of last year. I regret very much I was responsible for putting that Section in the Act of last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to accept it, but it was a very old friend. It appeared on the Paper in the Report stage during the Budget discussion in 1909, and it was intended at that time to embody it in the measure in a somewhat different wording as an addition to Clause 46 of the Finance Act. But Mr. Speaker ruled that as it placed a new charge on certain individuals, it was impossible to introduce it in the Report stage of the Bill. It appeared upon the Order Paper in the subsequent discussions on the succeeding Finance Bills of 1910, 1911, and 1912. Everyone remembers the conditions under which those Bills were discussed, and that no time really was given for a discussion of the new Clauses. It was not until 1912 that there was an opportunity of getting that Section introduced into the measure. It was intended to cover the case, mainly from my point of view, of the free tenant
360
in Scotland, and it has worked admirably there. There has not been a single com plaint about it, so far as I know, there.
It was designed to deal with this case, that whereas in England a brewer whose tithes were made responsible, if he charged a high rent or a high price for beer, for whatever portion of the monopoly value he would receive in respect of rent or profit. By Clause 46 he was held responsible to pay that particular share of the Licence Duty. It was felt that a private owner who exacted monopoly rent in respect of the licence from a free tenant should in that respect and to that extent also pay a portion of the new Licence Duty on the same principle, but the law of Eng land and the Customs of England and the law of Scotland are two very different things. But why the very sharp English lawyers who sit around me and on the other side did not realise how very much further this Clause would go applied to England than to Scotland I am not able to say. I disclaim responsibility for the fact that they did not notice it, but the fact remains that cases of very great hardship have arisen, as my hon. Friend here has just explained, and there is no one more anxious than myself to see an Amendment introduced to put an end to those hard ships. It is quite ridiculous that a person should be asked to contribute a much greater sum in Licence Duty than the rent which he receives—that is an absolute absurdity. The intention was that he should only contribute in respect of such portion of the monopoly value as he received, and which the Government was taking back under the Budget of 1909. I understand it to be extremely difficult to construct an amending Clause, although some hon. Members are at the present moment in consultation about it, but I am quite sure of this, that there is no one more ready or more willing than the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept a Clause which is quite reasonable on the subject, and which would remove these inequalities, which are unfair and unjust. I entertain the hope that before this Bill passes out of the House some Clause of that kind would be inserted, and no one will be more thankful to see it done and the in justice removed than I will.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The House, or a small part of the House, is considering a very complicated measure which seeks to amend imposts of very considerable complication. I am not sure how many hon. Members who are listening to me

361
would care, apart from reference to this measure, to endeavour to explain them. That, of course, is a criticism of Land Taxes. It is, of course, an attractive idea that by levying upon land values you can obtain for the people of a country a portion of that social value which is the result of the work of the community. The only question is whether in a country like ours, where land has been owned and dealt with in a variety of ways for a very long period, and where all kinds of complicated ownerships and interests exist, you can apply that system of land value taxation without hurting a very large number of people whom you have no desire to injure. The measure we are considering is an admission that faults have been discovered in the original Act. As has been already observed, that is not in itself a severe criticism of an Act of Parliament. It is impossible to pass an Act of any importance without finding it necessary in a very short period to amend it. Therefore the emendations are not in themselves a criticism of the principles of the measure. But surely on such an occasion as this we ought to consider very narrowly indeed the proposals that are made to amend the complications which have arisen, especially when my hon. Friend (Mr. Dundas White) threatens us with more of the same kind of thing! He spoke of rating the market value of land alone. I do not quite know what that means, and it would not be in order to discuss it at any length but I am quite sure that the phrase as it stands represents an impossibility. You cannot secure anything like sufficient money by rating the market value of land alone. Perhaps that is why my hon. Friend is so enamoured of the suggestion of the thirty years' period in Clause 11, My hon. Friend wants something to tax; he wants something to rate, I rather fancy, as he has given a great deal of attention to this subject, that he has come to the conclusion, as I have, that unless you make some time limit of that kind there will not be much to rate or to tax. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Younger) made a mistake when he referred to confiscating improvements more than thirty years old. There is no suggestion of that kind
Sir G. YOUNGER: All I meant was confiscating them as far as deducting them was concerned.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is not
362
exactly the same thing. What this Amending Bill seeks to do is to value agricultural land in the same way as urban land is valued under the Finance Act, 1910, Section 25 (4) (b). But it makes this exception: it is to be done in the same way except that there is to be a time limit of thirty years. The hon. Baronet is entitled to argue that if this time limit is set up you will be taxing a portion of such value. That can hardly be termed confiscation. But, at any rate, it would be a legitimate criticism to offer when we turn to Section 25, when we find what it is allowable to deduct in the case of urban land, and when we see that it goes as far as to include expenses of advertisement. What do expenses of advertisement add to the value of land? Nothing so far as any real economic value is concerned. Yet although we solemnly passed an Act allowing the expenses of advertisement to be deducted when we turn to agricultural land, real, sound, and economic expenditure of, say, £10,000, is not to be deducted. I really think that that is indefensible. I shall listen with great interest to what my right hon. Friend has to say about that. I cannot help thinking that those who are enamoured of land taxation have come to the conclusion that prairie land is very difficult to discover in places like the United Kingdom, except on a few mountain tops which are hardly accessible. Therefore, the single tax breaks down. Having made that discovery—it is a gigantic discovery upon which I congratulate them—they must find a taxable subject. How are they finding a taxable subject? Here is a farm which was once a marsh, and which, not owing to the work of nature, but owing to the work of man, has been turned into a farm. Why is it a farm to-day? Simply because, by the expenditure of capital, something which was given to man by the act of God, as Henry George would put it, as a waste product, has been turned, by the intelligence of man, into a farm. And now we are going to say what is untrue—that that farm has a prairie value; and we are going to arrive at that process of untruth by refusing to take into account any expenditure upon that farm except what has been made during the last thirty years. I submit that that is illogical and indefensible.
I pass to Clause 2. I welcome that Clause, but while I recognise, as explained in the Memorandum, that there is a very real danger to be guarded against, and that that is why the right hon. Gentleman

363
proposes to apply the principle of the Clause only to properties where the buildings are worth more than the land, I feel that that will create a fresh class of anomalies. If you set up a purely arbitrary dividing line of that character you will surely find that on or about that dividing line there will be all kinds of hard cases. There must be plenty of cases where works occupy a good deal of land, and the buildings are not worth as much as the land. Why should such cases be cut out from the operation of the Clause? If my right hon. Friend very properly wishes to guard against the danger pointed out in the Memorandum let him suggest some other means. I am perfectly sure that some better means than this purely arbitrary and anomalous distinction could be found. If this distinction is made another amending Clause will surely be required before many years have passed. Why not save that amending Clause by altering the character of the distinction? I pass to a matter on which I addressed the House not long ago—the question of the small investor. I remember saying that when this Bill came on I should put down Amendments exempting small investors under the Income Tax exemption line from the payment of any of the Land Value Duties. Therefore I rejoice unfeignedly to find in this Bill a Clause relieving from Increment Value Duty small investors with incomes not exceeding £160 a year. But I notice there a refinement of which I strongly disapprove. Not all small investors are exempt, but only those whose income is under £160 a year, and whose house is worth not more than £500. If you draw that line you will create more anomalies. For what purpose? What end is served? Is it likely that a man with £150 or £120 a year will possess such a property, such a landed estate, such a large piece of real property, as will make it a proper thing to tax him for Increment Value Duty? It is most improbable; it is almost impossible.
Why should you create a fresh class of anomalies by putting in this restriction? Here are two men, one sells property worth £480, and is let off Increment Value Duty, another sells property worth £520, and has to pay Increment Value Duty. That is an anomaly which we ought not deliberately to manufacture with our eyes open. I plead with my right hon. Friend to take out these words on the ground that they are quite unnecessary. The £150 Increment
364
Tax exemption limit is quite a different matter. Does that create an anomaly? No, it does not. Because if a man has £165 income, he only pays Income Tax on a very small portion of it. He does not pay Income Tax on the whole sum. In the case of Increment Value Duty this anomalous £500 line makes a man pay Increment Value Duty upon the whole amount and not upon a part. There is no sliding scale. There is no merging of the duty at the point where the artificial line of distinction is drawn. I call the attention of my right hon. Friend to that point. It is clearly desired to let off the small investor; there fore I ask him to do it thoroughly.
I submit with great confidence that if it is right to let off the small investor in respect of Increment Value Duty, it is right to let him off in respect of Reversion Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty. In fact, if one is right, the other is more than right. If a man has only £150 a year, and sells a house at a profit, he has at any rate some thing out of which to pay the tax. But when a poor fellow has a little parcel of land which yields him no income, he is called upon, not on a single occasion, but every year, to pay Undeveloped Land Duty.
These cases are not imaginary. I have come across more than one myself. I know a case where a man is landed—that is a very appropriate term in this connection—with a small parcel of land in a small provincial town. This small provincial town was at one time developing rapidly, but now, like many other provincial towns, it is no longer developing rapidly. What is the matter with that poor fellow? He wants to find a buyer. He does not want to hold up the land against the public. If any hon. Member is out to buy I can give him the name and address. I have no doubt the man would be very glad to get rid of the land. [An HON MEMBER: "What is the price?"] I am not the seller. This man who has got this piece of land, and the stock for it would pay, I think, a charge of 10s. per year. Some will say that that is not much; that 10s. is not a large Undeveloped Land Duty. The question is not that. The question is whether it is a just charge. The right hon. Gentleman conceded the point about Increment Value Duty, and I am perfectly sure that when I put down a new Clause, as I intend to do, to deal with this other matter, that he will give it very favourable consideration. The question of whether there is any departure from

365
principle in the matter is one that I do not think need for a moment strain the minds of hon. Members who are single-taxers. Take the Income Tax as an illustration. We in this House—and this is a very remarkable fact, though it was not particularly noticed—we by a Budget of the present Prime Minister, put on the Statute Book the words "unearned income" in relation to the Income Tax. If this House did not do that which was derogatory in recognising that principle, in exactly the same way I contend that the Clause which I propose to put before the House to exempt the small investor from this tax is in no way derogatory to principle.
One final word about valuation. Certainly, much less than justice has been done by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the valuation which has been set up by my right hon. Friend. That valuation may be imperfect. Undoubtedly it is. I myself have the very greatest difficulty in seeing in many cases that the results that have been arrived at can be of any value at all for any purpose. I know myself of a case where a house was built just before the introduction of this Budget and which was sold soon afterwards. Since then it has been changed out of all knowledge, and it has not yet been valued. How valuations in cases of this kind should be made I confess I do not know. I considered my self what, if I were the valuer, I would do under the circumstances, in the case I refer to, and I was gravelled for a solution of the problem. But the valuation can be amended to become of value in the future. Hon. Members opposite do not do it proper justice if they simply compare the valuation up to the present time with the yield of the Land Value Duties up till now. There is no proper comparison between those two items. As to whether the valuation will ever be important does not depend upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and it does not depend upon any Budget that can be introduced into this House. It depends entirely upon what is to be the future development of the United Kingdom. I note that the President of the Board of Education is present and education counts much in this connection. The problem rests with other Departments than those that have control of finance. It depends upon the economic development of the nation. In that connection who can approach this subject without having the greatest apprehension? Take Scotland. The population of Scotland is falling
366
rapidly. The number of children in the Scottish schools is diminishing year by year. That means that the land values of Scotland are falling. The land values of a number of our provincial towns are falling. We know that emigration is proceed at an unprecedented rate. That must mean a check in the advance of the land values. Therefore as to whether valuation is going to be fruitful in the future depends upon efforts far different from any that we are considering in connection with Budget operations. That, I think, is the great lesson which we have to bear in mind in connection with the present discussion.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The discussion to-day has wandered over a good deal of ground. That must necessarily be the case whenever you come to discuss a Revenue Bill. I propose to deal, firstly, with two or three, I will not say minor matters, but matters which have occupied some of the time of the House before I come to the question which has absorbed most of the attention of hon. Members this afternoon. I shall, first of all, deal with what fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in reference to sugar. He contended very strongly that it is our duty to introduce into the Revenue Bill a Clause whereby we can impose an Excise Duty upon sugar corresponding to the Customs Duty which is at the present moment levied upon sugar imported into the United Kingdom. The general principles upon which we are proceeding were laid down by the Prime Minister in the speech referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I will give the present attitude of the Government towards this proposition. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, those principles were in operation some time in Ireland in reference to another experimental industry, if I may so, that of tobacco. The Prime Minister laid it down very clearly that so long as the industry was purely in an experimental stage, he did not propose to introduce any provisions into any Finance or Revenue Acts which would have the effect of levying an Excise Duty upon it. That certainly is the case in regard to the industry of beet in Norfolk. During last year the total sugar produced was 2,246 tons, or in all a total of 3,000 tons of what might be dutiable-matter under the Excise provisions of this Act. I think it is perfectly absurd in the case of this 3,000 tons, in a purely experimental industry, to attempt to put a duty

367
on. It really looks as if we were rushing the taxes. It would strain the principles of Free Trade to do so. I do not regard it as in the slightest degree against the principles of Free Trade. The Prime Minister laid it down that whilst an industry of this kind was in a purely experimental stage it should be left alone. I am, therefore, prepared to defend it from the point of view of Free Trade. What I have said is by no means saying the same thing as that it will be a success. If it is a success, I have no doubt it will be developed on a very much larger scale, and then will be the time for the Government to give it their attention. If it is an industry suitable for the soil and climate of this country, and I am not expressing any opinion at all upon that—I do not know—but if it is an industry which will be suitable for the soil and climate, I believe we shall be able upon equal terms to build up an industry which will be equal to anything that has been done upon the Continent of Europe. It depends entirely as to whether it is suitable or not, and as at the present moment it is in the experimental stage, I should be very sorry to interfere with it, and I do not think the principles of Free Trade call upon me to do so. I come now to the very difficult question of licences. As the hon. Baronet said, it is perfectly true that when I introduced my Resolution, I did say that it was the intention of the Government to bring in some amending provision in regard to licences, and I had this in my mind. The Clause was introduced on the initiation of the hon. Baronet last year, and I think he will admit it has not been a success.
Sir G. YOUNGER: It has been in Scot land.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, it has not been in this country. The hon. Baronet was drawing upon the experience of his own country. There, I believe it is a success, but it has not been a success in its application to this country. It has inflicted injustice that is perfectly in defensible. I really have had two or three cases brought to my knowledge where the facts were very striking. It was a question as to amendment or whether we should not get rid of it altogether. If anyone in this House has an alternative suggestion—because there was a good deal to be said for the proposal of the hon. Baronet—I shall be glad to hear of it, because on the face of it this is a very equitable provision. But this Clause
368
shows how very difficult it is for you to forecast what the effect of an Act of Parliament will be. This Clause was on the Paper for two or three years. It was considered by the Revenue officials and by everybody interested; by the hon. Baronet himself, who really has a great stock of information on the subject, added to which is the experience of his own country; yet in spite, here is a Clause which the whole House considered to be a perfectly fair one, and which the Government accepted and incorporated in an Act of Parliament. It has produced the grossest inequity.
Sir G. YOUNGER: The Clause ought to have worked exactly as I thought it should work.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Here is an Act of Parliament in relation to which I believe the intention of the Government as well as the intentions of the whole House were perfectly clear. Somehow or other, the moment it goes into Court, a totally different interpretation is put upon the Statute. It is not for me to say who is to blame. The issues were contended for by very clever lawyers, and in the case of the kind it depends upon counsel persuading the judge to accept the point of view put forward. It shows how difficulties get into Acts of Parliament. It shows how in the interpretation later on, some word, it may be, of which the effect has not been quite realised, may alter the whole purpose of the Act. This is a case in point. I shall be very sorry to see this provision go, because its intention, I am quite sure, was very fair, and its purpose was upright, but there have been these exceptional cases which have come in, where it has inflicted undoubted hardships. If the hon. Baronet, in consultation with those who advised him on this subject, can find any other way out of the difficulty, I shall be glad to hear. Failing that, I am afraid it must be eliminated out of the Act of Parlament altogether. The reason why I have not carried out the pledge I gave in this matter is because we did not see our way to any amendment, and we thought we would give the hon. Baronet an opportunity of putting for ward an alternative suggestion. Of course, the primary responsibility is upon the Government, but I thought it was a perfectly fair way to give the hon. Baronet an opportunity of suggesting an Amendment. Failing that, I shall certainly not shirk the responsibility. I now come to the speech of the hon. and

369
gallant Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pretyman). I do not know whether he was rejoicing or whether he was not delivering a sort of felicitation to the Committee as to the triumph of the views that he and his friends have been expressing and urging upon the Government. I could not make out the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I read a speech of his the other day immediately after this Bill was introduced. He was full of joy; he patted himself on the back, in the face of the whole country. There was no triumph like it for the Land Union since the Song of Miriam. Then we had this evening a very able speech from him of an hour and a little more, but for the life of me I could not make out what it was he really meant. Does he want the Bill or does he not? An hon. Gentleman sitting behind him does not want it. The question is whether the Opposition really want the amendment which will arrive at the value of agricultural land after deducting the improvements effected upon it. Whether the period is twenty or thirty years is a matter for Debate in Committee. If I understand the hon. Gentle man's speech aright, he does not want it. He thinks it is a Machiavellian plot on the part of some of my hon. Friends for setting up a single tax. If that is the view of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is not the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman). I will not say upon the actual terms of the Clause, but upon the general intention, because the terms can be discussed in Committee. I understood that the Government were pressed, and I am sure that they are being pressed by the hon. and gallant Gentle man, and I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, did not press for something of this kind. If the Opposition say they do no want it, and that they do not want anything of the kind, then I think it is hardly worth our while considering the matter.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) delivered a lecture to the Government on the iniquity of deferring to public opinion. He said you ought to consider the thing really upon its merits. It is either right or it is wrong. In the beginning you were not going to do it, but public feeling manifested itself, and now you are going to do it. He was very angry that we should defer to public opinion. Would he mind delivering that lecture to his right hon. Friend on his
370
right (Mr. Bonar Law), because I have some recollection of his altering his mind in deference to public opinion and in deference even to by-elections. Food Taxes are either right or wrong. What a monstrous thing to alter that because there was an election at Bolton. These little observations might serve to stimulate a little private conversation between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his leader upon that subject. Let me correct one mistake he made. He said it was in deference to the Leicester election that we took this course. I think if he will look at a speech I made in this House he will find these views with regard to agricultural land, with regard to the Lumsden case and with regard to small holders, and in regard practically to the whole subject of the Revenue Bill were indicated by me weeks and even months before there was an election at Leicester. I outlined these things in a speech in this House long before the election at Leicester. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a little out of date when he referred to that.
Most of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite consisted in criticisms of details. The only general point they made was that the mere fact that we were amending the Act is in itself an admission that the whole thing was a failure. Surely it is very wrong to say that the moment an Act of Parliament dealing with complicated subjects has to be amended, that proves the whole Act was wrong. That has never been contended by this party or any other party, or by any sensible person in the country. The hon. and gallant Gentle man seems to imagine that Clause 5 is such a serious departure from principle that it subverts the whole fundamental idea of the Act. Clause 5 is a Clause which deals with small holders. It is no more a subversion of the principle of the Act than the Income Tax limit is of the principle of the Income Tax. In principle there is no reason why you should not impose Income Tax upon a man earning £120 a year or on a man earning £100 a year. In Germany they impose it on incomes much smaller. In Saxony and Prussia they do it, but even there it might be said, why do not they impose it on incomes of £40 a year, and when my hon. Friend talked about anomalies, I answer that, of course, every limit of this kind is bound to be arbitrary and you are bound to have anomalies out side it. I know men earning £150 a year who are much better able to pay Income Tax than many men earning £200 a year. To that extent it is unjust and anomalous,

371
but you must fix some arbitrary limit of this kind, otherwise you could not carry any Act into operation, and because we think it is fair that certain small holders should be exempted and we have already exempted them in the principal Act, we are told it is anomalous. You will find the principle of exemption of small holders in the original Act of 1909.and this is purely an extension of the principle we there lay down. My hon. Friend suggested it should be extended to Undeveloped Land Duty. That is a matter for consideration. It is purely a matter of expediency whether you set up these exceptions or net.
Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Will it be retrospective?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a different matter and I do not want to enter into details very much until we come to the discussion in Committee. I now come to Clause 11, upon which most of the criticisms centred. The criticisms upon other matters so much better suited to Committee that I would not feel justified in taking up the time of the House upon them now.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: What about the Reversion Duty?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I will deal with that now. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some cases at Lismore and Enniscorthy. I think as I heard the facts they were anomalous and sounded unfair, but these are very exceptional cases; these are cases when there is no written document; where the tenants depend upon the honour of the landlord; where they depend upon the owner by mere word of mouth, which was given by his predecessors in title. They are very exceptional eases, but I agree cases that ought to be met. If Amendments are put down dealing with these cases I shall consider whether they can apply to these cases. Perhaps if the hon. and learned Gentleman put down some Amendement dealing with the subject I will consider the matter. I think these are the only points raised upon Reversion Duty. I have already dealt with licences. There is one other observation I have to make: I agree the Town Tenants Act is, in my judgment, an enormous boon.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I mentioned that.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, and I should be very glad to see that Act
372
extended to this country. It would be a protection to business men extending their business, and it would make an enormous difference. But that is by the way. I now come back to Clause 11. We had a discussion, and several discussions, upon it. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, and said quite truly, that the valuation under the Act of 1909 did not ascertain the agricultural value of land after deducting improvements effected by the landlord for agricultural purposes. The reason for that was that we were then endeavouring to ascertain the building value. We were treating agricultural land from the point of view of its possible development as building land. I said so. In fact, we stated over and over again that we had no intention to tax agricultural land. We took every precaution in the Bill to exempt agricultural land. We did not even ascertain the agricultural value after deducting agricultural improvement, and that was the reason. I admit that when you come to discuss the possibility of utilising valuation for any other purpose it would not be fair to the landowner to accept that valuation as a fair basis, and that was the point put by hon. Gentlemen opposite in their criticisms, and I accept it, and I promised to introduce a Clause which would enable the valuers to deduct that value which had been created by the landlord by agricultural improvements. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fitzroy) seemed to think it was the same thing as money spent. By no means. It is perfectly true that it is a very different thing in agriculture or in buildings. Money which you spend upon the land may produce a greater value than the money you put into it. Money which you put into land sometimes creates not merely less value, but I have seen it actually spoilt. The hon. Gentleman opposite did me the honour of thinking I did not know very much about agricultural land. I lived in an agricultural district for the first years of my life. I was in an estate agent's office for five years. I acted professionally for a good many farmers and knew far more about their business than the landlords. The landlord would be the last man they would tell about their business. They were bound to tell their own solicitor, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do know something about farmers and farming.
Mr. FITZROY: I did not mean that.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not. I am

373
only saying that he rather suggested it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to suggest that the money which you spend upon agricultural land is the same thing as the value you create by that money. That is not so. I agree if you were to take all the money spent upon the land it would be a minus value, but, of course, there is no such thing as a minus value in agriculture. If you take land which has not a building or a drain on it and absolutely no improvements of any sort or kind, surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite does not say that that land has no value at all. I agree that if you deduct the whole of the money spent upon it you would have a minus value, but that is a very different thing. I have seen a few landlords recently upon this very Clause. The hon. and gallant Gentleman criticised the thirty years' limit, and he said there were some ten years' drains which made the land all the worse because those drains are in the wrong place and not properly laid. He also pointed out, on the other hand, that you may have a sixty years' drain which may still be very valuable. The old system of very deep drainage has proved to be an absolute failure. It has been discovered that it was a mistake to sink drains so deeply, because they answered no purpose at all. That discovery was made not very many years ago; therefore, when you are discussing improvements thirty years, forty years, or fifty years ago in regard to drains it is very relevant.
May I point out, however, that the only value you can deduct is the value you create and not the money you spend upon it? I do not go so far as to say the prairie value, but I mean the improved value. After all, when hon. Members criticise this Bill, they should remember that it is a measure dealing with something which is done already in Australia, and, I believe, in New Zealand. I have been asked for what purpose we are adopting this valuation, and it is said that we are just going to get the valuation, but we never reveal what we want it for. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite put this matter a little offensively, but I take no notice of it. I could retort very severely, but I will not do so for the moment. Now, what is the purpose? When I made a speech upon the subject I stated clearly what the purpose was. I said that we are not committed to any particular method of rating, but I do think it is right when you are valuing that you should value in such a way that the House of Commons,
374
whichever party is in power, should be free to adopt any method. I do not pretend to have a definite view upon the subject, although I may say that I am not a single-tax man. That is the only clear and definite view I have upon the subject, and I am not ashamed to say so after a good many years of consideration. I considered this question very carefully when it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Rating Bill, and I know it is one of the most complex problems which any Government could be faced with. It is no use dogmatising about it. Some people are so emphatic and certain about it that I do not think if you had given the time which I have given to the question you would be quite so sure as to which was the best method. It is an extraordinarily perplexing problem. It is a question whether you are going to tax capital or adhere to the present system of taxing annual values; whether you are going to take it on the basis of capital or annual value, and, if so, what are you going to do with the improvements? You have also to decide whether you are going to tax improvements, excess of improvements or future improvements, and whether you are going to have the existing rates upon improvements and future rates on unimproved property. One thing is quite clear, that the present system does, to a certain extent, discourage improvements. The moment a landlord puts up a good building, a cottage, or sets up a new house, the assessor is there and says to the farmer, "Up go your rates."
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that quite necessarily follows. If a landlord puts up better buildings, the assessment remains the same as long as the rent is not altered.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not necessarily, and, if it is, it is by ignoring the present law. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] We all know what the law of rating is. You are not bound to take the rent, but you are bound to take what is the letting value of the land. To say that by improving your buildings you are not improving the letting value is really an absurdity. If you improve it by the law at the present moment you are bound to put up the assessment.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: No.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman may be talking about Scotland, but I am, talking about England and

375
Wales, and, of course, I would not set my opinion against his on Scottish law, but as far as the English law is concerned that is what it undoubtedly is. It is perfectly true that if the rent is not put up, the assessor does not put up the rates, but that is because he overlooks the law on the subject. In most cases what happens is this: If the landlord sets up new buildings there is some sort of addition made to the rent—at any rate, in a very considerable number of cases—by way of interest on the money expended, and then undoubtedly the rates are put up. Is that in itself an undesirable thing? I say it is a discouragement of the improving landlord. The same thing applies to the towns. The moment you begin to set up new machinery and extend premises up go the rates, and it is only the tumbledown cottage, the dilapidated factory, and the bad landlord who never sets up new buildings, who is not treated in this way. I am not dogmatising as to this method, but I do suggest that it is worth while considering whether improvement should not somehow or other become an element in the question of rating to a much larger extent than at the present moment, and the only way in which you can do that is this: You want a valuation that will leave the House of Commons free to take any or either of those two methods or any combination of them. I am sure that whoever comes to deal with the question, whether it is right hon. Gentlemen opposite or right hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side, it will be of use to them to have a valuation of that character, and that is what we are trying to aim at.
Whether we have done it or not is a question to be discussed in Committee, but I suggest that this Clause is an attempt to meet the difficulty. Hon. Members ask, "Why should you stop at thirty years?" It has also been said that "any improvement ever made ought to be deducted." Those are the words which have been used. The hon. Member says, "Why not 200 years?" The only two improvements of that kind which reach back to any length of time are first of all, buildings, and, secondly, embankments for reclamation schemes. It just happens that the only estate office which I was ever in dealt with an estate of that kind, and I believe that almost the whole of it was reclaimed land, and it cost over £100,000. This reclamation was done by a
376
Member of this House who reclaimed thousands of acres. There is now a prosperous town built upon the reclaimed land, and a good deal of it is agricultural land. The whole of that broad area has been reclaimed from the sea, for it used to be covered by the sea. Let me take that case. There, undoubtedly, more money was spent upon it than it is worth at the present moment, and if you deduct the whole of that sum, if you deduct the value which the owner created, there is nothing left. See what that means. I agree that if it is for Imperial purposes and you want to tax unimproved value there is a point in it. There are a few hill farms and other farms and there is a parish church which was once on an island. If you say that you are not going to have any value at all in those cases, what are you going to rate? Therefore, reclamation I take to be in rather a different position to agricultural drains.
8.0 P.M
We have been asked why we take thirty years? Why not make it 100, 200, 400, 500, or 600 years? Take the case of the land reclaimed by the monks in the South of England. I believe the whole of that land was reclaimed in batches by the monks, and the whole of that value was created by the efforts of man. If this is going to be dealt with for rating purposes, are you going to say that no rate shall ever be imposed upon that land because the whole of the value was created by some sort of improvement? I hope that when we come to the Committee stage hon. Members will recognise that there is an essential difference between the kind of agricultural improvement represented by buildings, fences, roads, and agricultural drains, and the value created by those monks 500 or 600 years ago. That is the reason why we feel that you must put some limit of time. Whether thirty years is a fair rate or not I am prepared to consider in Committee, and I am disposed to say that it is not fair in regard to drains which have been laid a long time. We have been told that some of the drains made fifty or sixty years ago are almost as good as some of the drains which were laid down ten or twenty years ago. All that, I agree, ought to be taken into account. My right hon Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) in a very searching speech, suggested that the valuation and the taxes are too complicated. He forgets that he is dealing with the most complicated laud system in the

377
world. That is the real reason. The complication is not due to us at all. It is inherent to the nature of the land problem of this country. You have your leasehold, your copyhold, your freehold, and your gravel kind. There is every form of tenure. The ingenuity of lawyers, and that is great, especially that of conveyancing lawyers, has been exhausted—[An HON. MEMBERS: "Not exhausted"]—has been, I will not say utilised, because that would not be exactly the word, but has been developed and exercised during hundreds of years to make the land system of this country as complicated as the wit of man could make it. It is the most tangled thread. That is the first thing a law student finds when he takes up his book on the Law of Real Property; and yet, in reading it, he finds out what an extraordinary network of entanglement the Law of Real Property is in this country. I agree that the moment you touch it, unless you cut the cordion knot by some sort of sword and put an end to the entanglement altogether, and that we never professed to do in 1909—Lord Cairns started doing so— you arc bound to be complicated. I am not at all sure whether it would not be worth even the landowner's while to consider whether the system is not far too complicated for any useful purpose. The complexity of the system has prevented and handicapped landowners from making the best out of their possessions. That, however, is another matter. The moment you begin to deal with it, unless you simplify it, you are bound to be complicated.
I remember perfectly well when we came to deal with leaseholds hon. Gentlemen on that bench trying to put a point which they saw, and which I saw and knew—I will not tell the right hon. Gentleman which point it was—and suddenly stopping in the middle of their speeches, and saying, "It has eluded me again." They started afresh, one after the other, and came right up to it, and the Attorney-General (Sir W. Robson) said, "They have got it at last," but they had not. The discussion took the whole evening, and the best brains on that bench were brought to bear on the question. There was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), one of the acutest legal brains this country has ever seen, and there was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who, although he does not know law, has that extraordinary critical mind of his, and, if anybody could have under-
378
stood it, he would have done so. He came right up to it, I think as near as any man could do without actually getting to it. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) tried, but I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite failed in dealing with one point in the leasehold system of this country, although we all knew what they meant. We all knew that it was insuperable in theory, but that it would work out all right in practice. You could not theoretically elucidate the point, but it has not even presented the slightest practical difficulty. There have been other points which have, but that one has not. That shows what a tremendous entanglement in your land system is in in this country, and the whole difficulty has arisen from that fact. That is my answer to my right hon. Friend. It is no use complaining that these taxes and this valuation are complicated. It is no fault of ours. I agree with my right hon. Friend that a simple, straight valuation and tax would be better, but, if you have that, you will have to sweep aside all this jungle of legal chicanery woven round our land system; otherwise, you will be utterly unable to do it.
Mr. JOHN WARD: The lawyers will not allow you to do that.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, we might set a lawyer to catch a lawyer. That is the only thing I can conceive. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no more futile argument than to say, "Look at what the valuation has cost you, and what the taxes are producing!" He gave two very good answers to that argument. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were in power, would have to deal with the rating problem, and they would have to get a valuation. I say more than that; they would have to get a national valuation. Local valuations are a hopeless muddle and failure. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Younger) would be very surprised if he saw a letter I have received from a prominent Unionist in Scotland, complaining of the inequalities there.
Sir G. YOUNGER: That is your own fault. There is no necessity to make a valuation in Scotland.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My correspondent points out that it is something inherent to the system. I asked him for examples, and he gave me some of the most outrageous examples I have ever seen. I received it yesterday morning. That is

379
all I know about it. I am taking this from a gentleman whom I know very well, because he was one of the ablest members of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade. A valuation has got to be made, and, if you had set up your valuation, it would have cost you an enormous sum of money, exactly as it has us. I think that you would find that there is material which has been accumulated by the valuers that would fit in even with your notions of valuation, and that you could arrive at what you regard as a fair valuation from the material at our disposal without much expense. It would, in fact, be a pure arithmetical computation. Supposing it did not provide you with such material, it would cost you an enormous sum of money, and it would be grossly unfair to say, "Look at the valuation! It has cost you £2,000,000; what are you getting for it?" You are redressing anomalies and putting the rating system on a better footing. You may say that it is not a right valuation— that is a fair criticism—but to say that the money you spend on it is an annual expenditure is an unbusinesslike proposition. I agree also with what my right hon. Friend said about that. The increment value is bound to be something that will accumulate in the future when the value of land appreciates in this country. Supposing you had had a valuation and had settled the datum line fifty years ago, which is what John Stuart Mill wanted us to do, your Increment Duty would at present be a very fruitful source of income to this country. Of course, you could do what they are doing in Germany. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider what they arc doing in Germany. They are now proposing an Increment Tax as an Imperial Tax. The late Chancellor, about five or six years ago, refused to accept it, and went on the old lines of taxing food and commodities of one kind or another, and failed. Now they are going back to a Property Tax and an Increment Tax.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Yes, in lieu of Death Duties.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not now discussing Death Duties. What is their Increment Duty? It is a duty which goes back, I forget how many years, but twenty or thirty years. If I had proposed that in 1909, and had said, "We will go back fifty years and take the consideration money paid last time for this land," then it would have been a very fruitful tax to-day. It
380
is not fruitful for the moment, because you are fixing the datum line at the present time, and you are putting a coping of 10 per cent, on top of that to begin with. You are making all sorts of deductions, deductions which were introduced in Committee under pressure from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have added to the complication enormously. Then your Increment Duty only comes on top of that. Of course, that cannot be fruitful for some time. But it would be a great mistake for the rating authorities to throw this away. I am sure that the value of land is bound to appreciate in this country, not merely because of the increase of population, but also because of the increase in the demand for open spaces and for more room. The man who has been satisfied with a sort of little backyard wants his eighth of an acre now, and the man who has been satisfied with a fair garden wants his two or three acres. It is not merely that there are more houses, but also that the houses are consuming more land than they did in the old time, and they will continue to do so. As wealth increases and as the value of air space and light increases in the eyes of the people, you are bound to get an appreciation in the value of land in this country. I say more than that. As science begins to be applied to agricultural problems, and it is only just at the very beginning, you are bound to get an appreciation. If science had devoted as much time to agriculture as it has done to other industries, the production of agriculture in this country would have been twice or three times greater than it is at this moment. It would at any rate have been very much greater. I am perfectly certain that once that is done the value of agricultural land and building land will go up and then the Increment Tax will be a valuable one. It is then that a harvest will be reaped, but in the meantime there will be difficulties and complications, and there will be temporary burdens, but I hope we shall face them and get through, and I am sure, if we do, we shall reap our reward.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, would have left anyone who had not known the Orders of the Day, in doubt what we were discussing from the speech he has made. He has invited us to open on this occasion the whole subject of rating. I am not going to do that; I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman. I think that I can make the few observa-

381
tions which I propose to make with regard to Clause 11 to which he has devoted the greater part of his speech without dealing with the ultimate problem of rating. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Increment Tax is going to be a very valuable source of revenue to which the local authority will be very unwise to abandon their rights. I observe that the time at which the tax is going to be productive gets steadily postponed the longer the Bill has been in operation. When we were discussing the Budget it was going to be largely productive within a year or two. Now we are told that we do not know what may happen in fifty years. I pass that by. I come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's observations about the great value which is found so important to the revenue that the local authorities should not part with any of their rights in detail. Why, then, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to deprive them, under Clause 14 of the Bill, of their rights for another year? Surely that is illogical, and, no doubt, the representatives of the ratepayers will be heard in Committee when we come to Clause 14. More important is the closing observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When science, he says, has been applied to agriculture in the same measure as it has to other forms of production, then agricultural land will rise in value, and there will be an increment on it. Dose he mean that then he will tax it? Hitherto, the basis of his argument has been that no agricultural value is to be taxed. Now, he says, Increment Value Duty will soon become a great source of revenue, because, he says, in part building will be increased, and in part the new application of science will increase agricultural value. I thought I detected other confusions of thought in his survey of the proposals of this Bill. He observed in general that he could not understand the attitude of the Opposition or of my hon. and gallant Friend towards this Bill. Is it, he said, to be considered that if you amend a complicated Act, it is a confession of the total failure of that Act. No, certainly not. Of course, the question was stated in such a way that there is but one answer. But the remarkable feature is that the Amendments which you have to make are not to deal with unforeseen difficulties. Everyone of these difficulties was pointed out to the Government in the original discussions of 1909.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE dissented.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it was pointed out in the original discussion, of 1909; it was pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer again and again, and it is only now that he consents to deal with it. It is not an oversight that the original Act is what it is. It is his deliberate action, despite warnings addressed to him, and it is a confession of failure that, having all the facts brought to his notice in 1909, he then either would not or could not take the course which he is now obliged to adopt. He would really have saved himself a great deal of trouble, and the House of Commons a great deal of time, if he had been a little more reasonable, or even in the intervening stages if he had been a little more ready to accept the criticisms which have been passed. But the right hon. Gentleman tried to shelter himself under the impossibility of foreseeing the interpretation which the Courts would put upon our work. I know it is very difficult to forecast the proper legal construction of our work. The right hon. Gentleman made that observation on the Clause originally moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). I would observe on that point that perhaps the House of Commons does not express its meaning most clearly, nor is it in quite the best mood to appreciate the consequences of its action when it is discussing a Clause of that sort at 2 o'clock in the morning, at the end of a long and weary Session. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us an opportunity of discussing these things rather earlier in the Session, and at a rather more reasonable hour, perhaps he will have less reason to complain hereafter of the Courts taking a different view of his language than that which he has taken of it himself.
Since I mention that Clause, I would say at once that I am very glad, on the whole, to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in regard to it. The Clause has worked hardships which none of us foresaw, and which none of us can defend, and if there be no alternative between the original terms of the Budget and the amending Clause as we passed it, then I think our last case is worse than our first, and we had batter go back to the original proposal. But I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give some relief to the tenants without causing the hardships that the particular Clause has done. In any case, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentle-

383
man that if it be, as I believe it is, that the Clause works perfectly well in Scotland under the different circumstances of that country, then he need not withdraw the remedy given in that country merely because of those circumstances which produce greater hardships here. That is merely a matter thrown out for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration before he drafts the Amendment for a new Clause, and before my hon. Friend provides one which is satisfactory, too. I had intended to go straight on with the Bill, but I must follow the right hon. Gentleman again outside the Bill, and say one word about beet sugar. I was extremely glad to hear him rebuke the pedantry of some hon. Gentlemen on his side. We no sooner see a new industry endeavouring to get a footing in this country than they are anxious to cut it out by taxation.
No business, by whatever name you call it, ought to justify a procedure of that kind. Though I, no more than he, am competent to speak on the sugar industry of this country, I do most earnestly hope that the experiments which are now being made are going to be a success. I think it is of the greatest importance. It is a crop which requires high cultivation, and a great deal of labour. Those are two great advantages. But it has another that is as great or even greater. On both sides of the House there is some anxiety as to our food supply in time of war, if the ordinary course of commerce were interrupted, as I have heard the Prime Minister express it. I have been informed by one or two gentlemen who are, what I am not, agricultural, that the actual growing of the beet is a profitable operation. One gentleman of large experience said that he knew of no case, where the accounts had been well kept so as to show the actual outgoings and incomings, in which beet had been grown at a loss per se. What caused the loss was the cleaning of the crops; but if you put beet sugar in the place of an unprofitable crop, you might enormously increase the growth of beet in this country. I think that is of great importance. That being so, I can only hope that the Government will do nothing to discourage it. At any rate, for myself and my friends we will go further. We shall be glad to give it active encouragement in order to see it tried out to a conclusion.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman may perhaps like to know that
384
the Development Commissioners are considering this very question.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I see very great difficulty in the way of encouraging Home production by bounties. I think, in principle, there is very little difference between a bounty and a protective duty, and, in fact, a protective duty is preferable to a bounty. But I will not deal further with that on this occasion. This discussion is only so far germane to this Bill because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to defend himself for not putting into the Bill a Clause which I am very glad is out of it. I want to say one more word on the valuations in Clause 11. My Friends have asked the right hon. Gentleman to substitute one valuation for another. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is to super-impose a third valuation on the two existing valuations. He will quite understand that the two things are not the same. He thinks this third valuation may be necessary and will be valuable for some future purpose of rating or taxation. I cannot follow, if it be so, the reasoning by which he justified the limitation to improvements made during the last thirty years, or during some fixed period, and the endeavour to distinguish between improvements created by man and the natural value of the soil. Why should I have the benefit of my improvements if they take the form of buildings for all time, and not have the benefit if they take the form of not putting buildings on the land, but of creating the land? The right hon. Gentleman admits that the whole theory that the value of the land, as we know it, is the creation of the community is really rotten to the core. He admits that there is no such value as that, and that practically the whole of it is the creation of man. "Then," he says, "I will value it as the creation of man, but I cannot afford to look back to anything beyond thirty years." That really destroys the principle on which he is working, and it will not give him a true basis for rating, or taxation, or any other possible measure. I turn from that to another subject with which he dealt lightly and with an imperfect perception of how much was involved. He alluded to the Irish cases to which his attention was called by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy)—cases of the unjust and undesirable working of the Reversion Act, but he must have forgotten, for he did not allude to them, the English

385
cases which my hon. and gallant Friend {Mr. Pretyman) had given.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Those were the charitable cases.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not all of them. There were cases of leases with option of purchase. I want to go further. We raised this question in 1909. I have been much struck by one thing. There is no Act of which I know so little as to what was ultimately included within its Clauses between the original introduction of the Bill and its passage, after long discussions, as the Act of 1909. I now find I do not know which of our Amendments were accepted. I confess it was perfect surprise to me when I learnt that we had not got an Amendment into the Bill which would have dealt with this class of cases. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Debates, promised favourable consideration of the matter and agreed with me as to certain things which he did not want to do, and which would have covered the cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, as well as those cited by my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not know whether I can recall the circumstances to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman by repeating an illustration which I gave at that time. The law, as it stands, is that you are to pay Reversion Duty on the difference in the value of the property at the time you gave the lease and at the time the lease was determined. I took the case of the Cadogan estate. It would have paid Lord Cadogan at the time his leases fell in, and he would have got most money thereby, to relet the property in the condition in which he found it. But he did not do that. He made a great London improvement, and it is one of the advantages of having great landlords that you can sometimes get big town improvements made without any cost to the community. I put that case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time and asked him, "Do you mean that, in a case like that, the Inland Revenue authorities should come down on the man who has sacrificed his private interests in order to make an improvement to the property and to the amenities of the town? Would you say that he should have taken the rack rent which he could have got, and would you have taxed him on the difference between the original value of the ground lease and the rent which he might have got?" The right hon.
386
Gentleman admitted that that was an undesirable thing which he did not want to do. I beg of him, while we are dealing with this Bill, to bring to bear upon the point all the resources of the revenue authority, and the legal advice which he has at his disposal, to see whether he cannot draft a Clause which will say that a man shall only be taxed on the benefits which he receives, provided that the transaction is bonâ fide. I quite agree he is entitled to go behind the face of the transaction if there is reason to suspect evasion, but, where it is a bonâ fide transaction, I do not think he should go behind it. He has a right to tax assuming that the principle of the tax is the Benefit which is received on the lease, and not every penny which a man might wring out of the tenant or out of the community by a disregard of the amenities of the town in which the property is situated, or of the legitimate interests of the sitting tenant who has asked for a renewal of his lease.
I had a case brought to my notice by the master of one of the great city companies. They had a tenant who applied, towards the expiration of his lease, for a renewal, offering to surrender the unexpired portion. The master told me that no member of the Court was allowed to serve any personal interest in dealing with property belonging to the company. Indeed, he said, this particular tenant was not a persona grata so far as he was concerned, and was not a man whom he would have gone out of his way to do an exceptional thing for. But, he said, they had to consider the interests of their sitting tenants. They could not treat them as they would strangers. They gave them the benefit of the buildings which they had put up or bought, and, in accordance with their practice, they gave this particular man a lease on slightly better terms than they would have granted had the property been thrown on their hands without any claim of that kind, and if they had been dealing with a perfect stranger coming to them for the first time. In such a case they would have asked for a little more than they were willing to accept from the sitting tenant. It has been a great complaint frequently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that landlords have not sufficiently recognised their obligations to the sitting tenant, and that they have been too much inclined to screw the last penny out of them. But this law puts an inducement on the landlord to do that; it not only does so, but it penalises him if he

387
does not do it, and it makes it possible for the Inland Revenue officer to say, "You must pay, not only on the benefit you receive, but on the rack rent you might have got, if you had been a harsh and unconscionable landlord."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Did they do it in that case?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, they did, and I said to the master of the company, "I am sure we put an Amendment into the Bill to prevent that." He replied that they had taken counsel's advice—the name of the counsel was Mr. Danckwertz—and he had informed them that it was not so. Since then, so sure was I that we had done it, that I searched the Act for the words which I thought would have provided for it. They were not in the Act. I think what I have said will show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has something more to deal with than an exceptional Irish case, and that there really is a much wider amendment of the Act needed than he has contemplated. I do not think it is an impossible case to meet, and I hope he will make the best use of his time between now and the Committee stage to see whether he cannot, with his advisers, work out a solution.
There is one other thing I want to mention. It is a comment in regard to the working of the original Act. We are charged under the Act yet another duty, the Undeveloped Land Duty, on the land which has a building value in excess of its agricultural value. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had his attention called to the effect of that upon the Town Planning Act. For myself, I think that one of the most beneficent measures, if wisely used, as I hope it will be, which this Government has passed, or which has been passed in their time, is the Town Planning Act, but this Undeveloped Land Duty confronts the makers of town-planning schemes with a new and unexpected difficulty. I will take a particular case which was brought to my notice the other day. A certain town-planning scheme has been made for an area in one of our towns. From certain portions of that area all factories are excluded, and certain other portions of the area are allocated to factories and factories only. That is in the interests of the general amenities of the town, in order to secure good quarters for
388
the artisans and others who have to dwell in them. You can see very well that a property owner might say "Yes, but the particular use to which you allocate my land is not the use to which I at first put it. You have allocated it to factories in the interests of the general amenities of the place, but I could put up houses tomorrow and there is no demand for factories. Again, it might be the other way way round. There might be a demand for factory sites, but you have prevented me from letting the land as a factory site and have said I am to let it only for housing." They have, as town planners, interfered with the free use of his land, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer still says, "Oh, you have not let your land. It is not built upon, therefore you must pay Undeveloped Land Duty."
It is more than that. You assess the value of a great deal of this land before there is a town-planning scheme. You assess it without the knowledge of the conditions which the town-planning scheme imposes. If it is assessed after the town-planning scheme is made, I assume that the conditions of the scheme would have to be taken into account just as much as the covenants of a lease. All the land has to be valued as in 1909. As in 1909, the land might have a certain value, say for factory purposes, but he did not build them. It might have a higher value for houses. You assess it on its highest value for Undeveloped Land Duty. Two or three years later the land is still undeveloped. Down comes the corporation with a town-planning scheme and prevents him from ever realising what might be the highest value to which he can put the land, and forces him to use it for less valuable purposes, but he continues to be taxed as if it were used for the most valuable purpose. Not only is that wrong, but it is contrary to the public interest, because anything is contrary to the public interest which tends to make town planning schemes unpopular, or to throw difficulties in the way of local authorities who are trying to administer them. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should take that matter also into his consideration and see whether he cannot do something, as I think he possibly might, in order to prevent this hardship recurring.
I will only make one further observation. I was delighted to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer observe to-night that it

389
was a misapprehension to suppose that the improvements for which any landowner might take credit were to be valued at the amount he had spent in creating them. He rightly said the money he had spent in creating them might be too much or too little. The right hon. Gentleman has taken that attitude quite consistently. I wish he could impress it upon his valuers, because so little are they aware of it—I do not like bringing personal affairs before the House of Commons—that I have taken an appeal to a Referee against a valuation because the valuer informed my agent that it was so improbable that the making of a road could have created any value in excess of the money spent upon it that he refused to consider my claim further. My agent advised me not to take the appeal. I only mention this because this is what the right hon. Gentleman forgets when he talks about the small number of objections and appeals. I instructed my agent to take an appeal upon that point and upon another. My agent said he would be delighted to take the appeal as it was a point of great importance to many of his clients, but that he was bound to advise me not to do so, because if I succeeded to the whole extent of my claim I should be better off only to the extent of £3 a year for the time the land remained undeveloped, and would have spent a good deal more than would ever be returned or I should ever save. Having taken an interest in this Act, I said that expense would be no consideration; that I would pay the money and fight it out sooner than this should go through. You cannot expect every aggrieved taxpayer to do that. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the great measure of smoothness with which this Act is working and the absence of hardship to the individual is shown by the paucity of appeals, I tell him he is making a great mistake and that it is the expense and the uncertainty of the appeals which cause a great number of people to submit, as I think, in many cases to illegality and hardship rather than to prosecute their claims before the Referees with a possibility, and, indeed, a probability, as was pointed out to me by my agent, that should I be successful, as I hope to be, before the Referee, the Government would not be satisfied until they had taken me to the House of Lords.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid particular stress on the fact that under Clause 11 we are going to rectify the valuation of agricultural land
390
in a way which will enable it to be used at some future time, if so desired, for an improvement in our rating system. That will give great gratification to large numbers of those who have taken a special interest in this rating question. We have all along objected to being saddled with responsibility, as land taxers, for difficulties which have arisen out of the various duties found in the Bill of 1909. At that time, land taxers put a very simple proposal before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to have a Land Tax on the owner's valuation. It would have been perfectly simple to adopt; the revenue would have come in immediately, and could have been used in relief of present methods of taxation. But we have a fairly good idea of what happened at that time. Though the right hon. Gentleman might himself have desired to adopt that course, there was a great deal of opposition on these benches from Members who had got in on the great flood tide of 1906, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was driven back to the Increment Tax, Reversion Duties, and so-on, which form no part of a scientific method of taxing land values. I welcome the Bill to this extent, that it is making a start in getting rid of part of the Increment Tax, and I hope, when the valuation is secured, it will be swept away together with the Reversion Duty and these other methods of taxation. There is to-day throughout the whole country, on the part of rating authorities a general demand that the great services which now fall upon localities shall be taken off the rates and financed by the Exchequer, and that would moan raising from new sources of taxation a very large sum of money, and at present there is no other proposal in the field whatsoever except that this revenue shall be found by way of a national tax upon land values That tax cannot be imposed until we have a valuation which will give us some basis for that tax throughout the whole area of the Kingdom.
Then, also, we come to the fact that there is an urgent need for the rectification of our method of assessment for local taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned some strange anomalies which arise out of our present method; but there are anomalies in connection with the rating of agricultural land in rural areas which are something more than an anomaly—they amount to an absolute scandal. He said he had been given certain instances, but that he had not got

391
them with him. I propose to give some specific examples of these rating anomalies. I was led to the examintion of one parish from the fact that in a public controversy, the Duke of Norfolk objected to my statement that his Sussex estate was derelict and semi-utilised, and to find out whether I was correct or not, I went down to one of the parishes to find out how the land was rated, as a means of determining whether it was being put to its full use or not. I wish to bring before the House a few cases of rating in the parish of Angmering, in Sussex. I will take three farms. Angmering Park Farm is a farm of 556 acres, and it is assessed at £55, and the buildings at £14—very valuable buildings. There is another great farm of 265 acres, assessed at £15, and the buildings at £5. In 1881 land and buildings were assesed at £335, whereas to-day they are only rated at £21. There is another farm of 315 acres, which is assessed for land at £51 and for buildings at £7. In 1881 the assessment was £125. There is another farm of 249 acres, which is assessed at only £13 for the land and, I think, £13 10s. for the buildings. In 1881 it was assessed at £196. These figures, which I have taken from the rate book, seem almost incredible. I was going to use them at a public meeting, and I sent them to the solicitors of the Duke of Norfolk, with whom I had been corresponding, saying I was going to use them and if they had anything to say they had better say it before I went on the platform. Their reply was:—
"We are not in a position to check the figures, but we cannot think that they are accurate."
The figures are easily capable of verification. I want to put some of these figures together to show what they mean. It means that 1,395 acres there are assessed at only £135, and as they onlypay half the rates, being agricultural land, and the rates being 4s. 8d. in the £, they only pay fifteen guineas to the rates. If you take the gross estimated rental of this land given in the rating book, taking it at twenty-five years' purchase, it gives the capital value of only £5,000, which is an indication of the monstrous underassessment of the land in this parish. The cause is that round these farms there are the woodland and game preserves and pheasant preserves of the Duke of Norfolk. There can be no other cause for the low rental and the under-assessment for rates of these great and valuable farms.
392
I should like to go to another parish and give two cases from that. There is a farm of 795 acres assessed at £210, and the splendid buildings are asssesed at £20. There is another fairly good farm of 987 acres assessed at £159, and the buildings, also splendid buildings, at £30—that is, 1,782 acres paying £43 a year to the rates. I should have no objection whatever to this type of assessment if it was a fair deal all round. I should have no objection to the Duke of Norfolk almost escaping rates on agricultural land and on his magnificent farm buildings if the small holder or the market gardener or the man in the cottage also escaped, but something very different is taking place. I am going to give the other side of the case—the case of the small man who uses land. I will take the case of a man in the parish of Angmering, who secured in the first place three-quarters of an acre of an old disused quarry site. He got a man whom I know to cart some soil on to the site, and then he erected some glasshouses. He has altogether two acres, and he is assessed at £4 a year, and where he put up glasshouses and other buildings he is assessed at £52 a year. The total assessment is £56 a year, and he pays in rates £13 2s., so that we find a nurseryman on his little plot of land paying £13 2s. a year, and the Duke in the same parish with 1,395 acres paying only £2 more—fifteen guineas a year— and the nurseryman's buildings are assessed at £52 a year. The Duke is assessed on his great farm buildings, one at £14, another at £5, and a third at £7 a year.
Mr. COURTHOPE: Will the hon. Member give the Duke's assessment as to water meadows in Angmering parish?
9.0 P.M.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am only giving the facts I know with regard to these particular farms. I would be only too pleased to give the Duke's assessment as to water meadows if I had them before me. Someone mentioned that when capital expenditure was made on farm buildings, and so on, and it did not result in an increase of rent, there is no increase of rates. That is very often the case. I am told that in Angmering, £4,000 was spent on farm buildings, and that there was no increase in the assessment. I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this question of assessment. He indicated that wherever capital expenditure took place, and the rent rose,

393
there was increased assessment. That may be the case with regard to town districts, but there are particular reasons in the country districts why the assessment should not go up. I have pointed out that great farms escape assessment. Who are the assessors? In Angmering, one is a tenant farmer of the Duke of Norfolk, and another is a tenant farmer of another great owner. These two men form the assessment committee of the parish. Under these circumstances, capital expenditure may go forward on great farms, but the assessment will not rise. It is this absolutely unjust state of affairs which allows derelict land almost to escape rates altogether. But there is a burden on the small holders in the district. I say, therefore, it is absolutely essential in order to rectify this state of things to have this new, official, and, we hope, unbiassed valuation for rating in rural areas. It is a matter lying at the root of the whole housing problem. In Angmering an order has been sent to an occupier in the following terms:—
"I am directed by the council to hereby give you notice under Section 91 of the Public Health Act of 1875, to abate a nuisance existing at the above cottage caused by overcrowding. The twelve occupants should be reduced to two adults and four children, the premises only being capable of holding six persons at the most. The council do hereby request you to abate the same within fourteen days of the date of this notice."
The dimension of this cottage which contained twelve occupants were: One bedroom, 9ft. by 11ft., and one large landing, 6 ft. by 8ft., and open to the stairs. In that cottage there were husband and wife, the wife's brother, three sons over twenty, various daughters of all ages, and younger sons. Why do I say that the question of rating lies at the root of the housing problem? If they could get land in Angmering, cottages would appear. There is no housing problem at all; it is really a land problem.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I would point out to the hon. Member that we are not now dealing with the basis of taxation. I must ask him to make his remarks more relevant to the provisions of the Bill with regard to the valuation of land.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt very largely with the question of using this valuation for rectifying the rating system, and he mentioned various ways in which it could be done. I was simply following the lines he had taken.
394
Perhaps I may be permitted to finish what I was saying. The housing problem there is largely a question of inability to get land. There a builder applied to a local landowner for a couple of acres of land, for which he offered £275 per acre. The landowner refused to sell for less than £1,000 per acre. Under the present system that land is not assessed on more than £1 per acre, whereas, when we get this valuation, we will be able to assess it upon £1,000 per acre, and, if rates fall upon it, the land will become available for dealing with the housing problem. With regard to this rectification of the valuation, we are doubtful if it is being accomplished in the right way. We wish a rectification of full site values. The single tax is foreign to our views of taxation. I hope the law will be so amended that we will get a rectification of full site values. At any rate, it will be necessary to urge on this valuation so that it will be possible to make it a basis for rating and taxation reforms, and I certainly think the Government need have no hope of carrying forward in this country a land campaign unless they realise that they have to go to the root of the problem and give the country what it requires, namely, an improvement in the taxation and rating system, which will mean the taxation of land monopolies and the loosening of their grip on the land.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I must enter a protest against the speech which we have just listened to from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Outhwaite), and the method which he adopted of selecting certain farms and bringing them up in this House from a district which contains both very valuable and absolutely valueless land. I have no special knowledge whatever of the Duke of Norfolk's estate, but I happen to know very intimately the three farms which the hon. Member mentioned. I know neither their rental nor the assessment to rating, and I am prepared to accept the figures which the hon. Member gave as to these matters, but I do know from a certain limited agricultural experience something of their value. The two farms which he mentioned together consist almost exclusively of high downland, almost absolutely valueless, and a very small proportion of those two farms is worth more than 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. per acre rental. I am not in the least surprised that the assessment committee should have put them at a very low figure. If, on the other hand, he will take some of the land in

395
that district, such as that which I mentioned when I interrupted the hon. Member, say the water meadows, he will find the state of things absolutely comparable to the figures which he quoted for the small holder.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the Duke of Norfolk sell the land at twenty-five years' purchase of the rental value? That is the test.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I am not here to answer any such question.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: Do you think it likely?
Mr. COURTHOPE: I am perfectly certain from what I know of Sussex landowners that the Duke of Norfolk would be glad to sell much of his land at twenty-five years' purchase of the rental he can get for it. But I only mention this in order to protest against statements in support of the Land Tax proposals based upon fallacies of which the House in general has no special knowledge, and which from my chance knowledge of this district I know to be grossly unfair, because of the extremes of value, high and low, which this district contains. I turn now for a few minutes to the principal subject on which I wish to say a few words. Early this afternoon a rather strange speech was made by the right hon. Gentleman, who represents South Shields (Mr. Russell Rea) on the subject of the beet-sugar industry, and a strong appeal was made by him to the right hon. Gentleman to place an Excise Duty equal to the Customs Duty, upon the small quantity of beet sugar manufactured in this country, on the ground that either the protection was not required at all or that the beet industry was not worth supporting. I should not have troubled the House with particulars about this industry were it not for the fact that every single one of the statements which I heard the right hon. Gentleman make about this industry is untrue. I could sec no indication in his speech that he had made any attempt to verify them. I am sorry that he is not here. I would much rather pay these things before his face than behind his back, but I must take the opportunity of saying them when I can. I know about these things, because I happen to be the chairman of the so-called Dutch Company—it is not Dutch, but English—on which so much ridicule has been cast. It is a company registered in Eng-
396
land, and the issue was made over here, but probably it was referred to as a Dutch company because, in addition to having the factory in Norfolk, we happened to hold a controlling interest in three Dutch factories.
The first statement of the right hon. Gentleman which attracted my notice in particular was that the value to the English factory of the protection—I am not afraid of the word—was enough to run that factory for a year. I may tell him that the amount on which we are said to have existed, 1s. 10d. per cwt. protection, was insufficient to purchase our raw material for a week, and insufficient to run the factory, exclusive of the purchase of raw material, for a fortnight. That disposes of that allegation. Then, those who heard or might read his speech might be led to believe that the attempt which we are making is of no particular importance and that no particular sum was involved. Unfortunately we are within a few weeks of presenting a balance-sheet, and until that balance-sheet is presented it would be most improper for me to disclose in detail the figures which it contains. I wish that I was able to do so; but I would like to say, as I can do with perfect freedom, that the capital involved in the factory in Norfolk, quite exclusive of the interests in Holland, is nearer to £200,000 than to £150,000, and that the portion of our expenditure on our first year's working, which consists very largely in expenditure on development work, educational and constructional work in the establishment of an industry, expenditure which does not occur once the industry is fairly established, exceeded many times over all the advantage which we received from the fact that there is no Excise Duty, and there is not the smallest doubt that if justification were required for this protection, the facts supplied and verified would probably supply it for some years to come. But I am more concerned to answer an allegation of the right hon. Gentleman, that the industry was probably hardly worth establishing, quite apart from whether it paid or not. Though he admitted that it employed a certain amount of labour, he said that it was labour of a very inferior kind, and that it was far from certain that it was for the national interest that this industry should be supported.
I think that that requires a reply in some detail. It is true that the labour employed

397
on the agricultural side of the beet sugar industry is seasonal. It is required twice each year, but still it is seasonal labour. A great quantity of it is required. Far from being labour of an inferior quality it has to be high class labour. It is possible to employ a certain amount of female labour, but the labour which is unaccustomed to the handling of tools and to the adjusting of accurate work with them is perfectly useless or worse than useless in this industry. But the importance of it from the national point of view does not rest on the amount of labour employed in the cultivation of beet. It rests on the effect which we hope confidently it will have upon rural life and agriculture in general, and we base those hopes not on theory but upon Continental and American experience of the same industry. Whenever this beet industry has been established—and, of course, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred elsewhere beet is cultivated in rotation—it is found that the district produces an ever-increasing crop per acre of cereals, barley, oats, and wheat, that the district carries an ever-increasing head of stock, because of the ever-increasing production of feeding stuff in the district and that, speaking generally, the fertility of the district is increased wherever this crop is introduced on an extensive scale. The reasons for that are not far to seek. The necessary cultivation for the proper growth of sugar beet is deeper than any cultivation which we are accustomed to make in the arable parts of this country or anywhere else. The deep initial cultivation, as everyone who has any knowledge and experience of agriculture knows, makes for the greater fertility and greater production per acre of the following crops. Secondly, the plant itself sends down extremely deep roots. I have had myself plants growing on my own land seventy-two inches in length. I do not pretend that that depth from the surface is a very big one, but still the plant percolates the soil, and that makes for increased fertilisation in the future. Thirdly, and in conjunction with my first two points—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I did not hear the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but surely it is not necessary to go into such details on the Second Reading of a Revenue Bill.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I frankly admit I should not have ventured to go into this
398
detail, and I had not intended to do it when I entered the House, but the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields attacked this industry, threw doubt on it on this particular point, and said that it was extremely doubtful as to whether it was of national interest that it should be introduced. I find it very difficult, without going into some detail on an industry which is admittedly and must be a strange one, to answer effectively that speech, which, I think, ought to be answered.
Dr. CHAPPLE: I was in the House during the speech and I think it is only fair for me to say that that is not exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said if the industry depended on this 1s. 6d. per cwt. in order to keep it alive, but I do not think he said it was a national injury or not an advantageous industry.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I now gather that in the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman there was a general reference to the industry. The hon. Member has referred not only to the general points, but in detail. I think it may be assumed that the answer which the hon. Gentleman has made is a satisfactory one from his point of view, and I really must ask him to leave that point and come to the general merits of the measure we are discussing.
Mr. COURTHOPE: Certainly, but in justification of my own disorder, if I may use the word, may I say that the words which I took down at the time, with all deference to the hon. Member opposite, were that the introduction of this industry would be a doubtful advantage, as although, it was said, it employed additional labour, that labour was of an inferior quality. It was that remark which I took down which led me into perhaps somewhat rambling details, but, as you say, I will certainly leave that moot point now. I wish to impress upon the House that this industry is one which has great justification from a national point of view, far and away greater than the mere effect of its own cultivation, in its indirect effect upon rural life, and that is the motive which has brought me into it, and on that I should be prepared to justify it. The manufactured products of this industry, sugar, which it is sought to subject to an Excise Duty, is unquestionably a food of the people. It is a necessity. The consumption of sugar is rapidly overtaking and promising to

399
pass the world's production. Because of the present low price which maintains, and which everyone who has the interests of the consumer at heart would wish to see maintained, the area of land on the Continent of Europe which can produce a crop at this price is coming to an end and has reached its maximum. You cannot substantially increase the area of the crop in Europe except under the stimulus of a great increase in price. I do not think that the increase which is going on in cane production is ever likely to check the world's demand for beet sugar. It comes down to this, and if you are going to have an increase in beet sugar production, in order to meet the increasing consumption you have got to get that increase in Great Britain.
There is not the smallest doubt we can do it climatically, agriculturally and scientifically, and the needs of the consumer to keep the price down demand an increasing production, and this is the country where that increase of production is possible. So there is a national need from the consumer's point of view for the introduction of this industry, and I maintain that in its initial stages, when enormous difficulties have to be overcome, and when every person has to be taught like a little child from the beginning, the labourer, the farmer, the man who transports it, and when a huge staff has to be kept for instruction and demonstration purposes, it would be folly in the natioanl interests, and I hope the House will believe me that I am considering, not only the interests of the Government, but the nation as a whole, to run the risk of stifling a possibility of this kind by imposing a duty upon it which it is not yet in a position to bear, although I confidently hope it will be in a position in the future to bear it equally with the other producers of sugar.
Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I am sure that every Member of this House hopes that the growing of beet sugar in this country will be successful. We who sit on this side welcome the latter statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that the particular factory in which he is interested will soon be able to pay the same Excise Duty as is paid by other refineries in this country. In my Constituency there are several sugar refineries, and I simply wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point and to supplement what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields
400
(Mr. Russell Rea) that this matter may receive attention in a year or so if this industry grows to any extent. We have no desire in any degree to check or retard the growth of beet sugar in this country. We only seek that the firms who to-day are refining sugar should be placed on an equality with those who refine beet sugar grown in this country. Taking the present price of sugar at about 14s. 6d. per hundredweight, firms who do not pay the Excise Duty have an advantage of from 12½ to 15 per cent. I do not think that anyone on this side can justify that preference, which to-day is given to the particular firm which refines beet sugar grown in this country.
Mr. COURTHOPE: Technically it is not a refinery at all. Raw sugar is produced and turned into what is known as granulated—the equivalent of first-class Continental granulated—in the same factory, and it does not go to a refinery. It is not brought into competition with the English refined sugars which are imported in a raw form and refined.
Mr. COLLINS: My Constituents unfortunately do not have the same opinion as to the competition between themselves and the factory in which the hon. Member is interested.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I admit the competition.
Mr. COLLINS: I hope the Government will take the matter into consideration if this new industry grows to any extent. The industry is in its infancy. Whether it will reach maturity is a matter of opinion. But if it succeeds we sincerely trust that the Government will place an Excise Duty on the refining of sugar. When this question was raised in August, 1912, when the Brussels Convention was under discussion, the Prime Minister, referring to the question of growing beet sugar in this country, said:—
"I see no reason why this industry—I am expressing no opinion of my own—should not receive assisstance from the Development Fund in its early stages."
He went on to say that he was careful to give no pledge in the matter. It is to the Development Fund that we think this particular factory should look for support. We desire to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point, hoping that perhaps next year the matter may receive attention in the Revenue Bill.
Mr. NEWMAN: We heard just now a speech from the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), who is a full grown single taxer. That being so, he is not in agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman a speech in which the statement of most interest to the country was to the effect that he was not a single taxer. He was not in favour of a local Income Tax, and, as far as I could make out, he was not in favour of the taxation of land values. We have been told that Members in all parts of the House welcome this Bill. I can well imagine that hon. Members opposite when addressing their constituents have had awkward questions put to them by those, interested in real property in a small way, and that they are very glad that this Bill has been brought in to redress one or two glaring grievances. One Member told us, however, that the average man wanted this Bill. There I join issue. I believe that when the average man comes to examine this Bill he will be bitterly disappointed. What he wants is simply the abolition of the Land Taxes. All he gets is seventeen more Clauses, which have to be added to the forty-two Clauses of Part I. of the Finance Act, 1909. If he washes for assistance in dealing with them, I dare say the conveyancing lawyers and big surveyors will put him out of his difficulties at a price. This Bill means added perplexity. When these taxes were first introduced, the country was told that they would produce a great and growing revenue, and undoubtedly there was a fear in the mind of the average citizen that he was going to be bled in the shape of hard golden sovereigns. As the years have gone by, he has found, as a matter of fact, that he has had to pay very few sovereigns in the way of taxation; but he has had to undergo a great deal of worry and to pay out a certain amount of money to surveyors and other professional man. When he studies this Bill, he will find that as far as two of the taxes are concerned, Increment Value Duty and Reversion Duty, the yield in future years will be even more insignificant than in the past. It has been calculated that if this Bill becomes an Act, the Increment Value Duty will sink something like £5,000 a year, and that the yield of the Reversion Duty will be very small indeed.
It may be said that if a man takes a certain number of precautions he will be able to escape altogether being taxed for Increment Value Duty or Reversion Duty.
402
But, after all, occasions on which the average man may be taxed for Increment Value Duty or Reversion Duty must come during his life-time. There is no man who owns property to whom on some occasion or other there may not come a claim. Therefore, he will always be on tenter hooks, always in a state of uncertainty, whether he is going to be taxed or not. He will be compelled to wander in the future as in the past amongst the maze of valuation forms which do not bear the ordinary interpretation of the English language. The ambiguity of the language used is to the ordinary man the chief objection to both these taxes. Take what has happened in two notorious cases—the Lumsden case and the minus site value case. In the Lumsden case the counsel for the Government stated that site value was a term which was interpreted in a very special way under the Act, it was not site value as ordinarily understood, but site value as defined by the Act. That is not what the ordinary man in the street can possibly understand. In the minus site value case, you had the decision given by the referee reversed by one set of judges, and reversed again by the Supreme Tribunal in the House of Lords. Eminent judges were befogged and bewildered by these terms. One set of judges put the value on the assessable site value, while another set put it on the full site value. If they were befogged and bewildered, the man in the street will be yet more bewildered. What we want is, if possible, to clear away all the mystification about the word "value." We do not want all these values at all. In the Clause of the 1909 Act, in this Revenue Bill, and in the Clauses that we have under discussion, you will find the word "value"—site value, and full site value, and so on, repeated time after time. If hon. Members care to take the Bill and turn to Clause 10, they will find that it consists of ten lines. In those ten lines they will find the word "value" in some shape or another mentioned ten times. We want to clear all that away. What I mean is, that if you are going to get a valuation of the land of the country made, all that the Government valuer ought to want is simply two values. There ought to be what I should call the market value, something which the property would bring in the ordinary "give-and-take" of a market sale; then you want something like the land value. That is the value of the bare site with the various improvements allowed off from it. Take first of

403
all the market value. That should be, I contend, a "live-and-let-live" valuation. It should endeavour to be for the United Kingdom what Griffiths' valuation was for Ireland fifty years ago—just an ordinary work-a-day valuation; what a man is willing to pay for a farm, and that for which the landlord is willing to let it go. That would be an eminently useful valuation, but it would take time. You could not have such a valuation in a hurry. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the valuation made by Sir Richard Griffiths in Ireland took him about forty years. If you are going to have a careful valuation of that kind for this country, you cannot get it through by 31st March, 1915.
Take the second valuation, which I imagine is rather more important to hon. Members opposite, that is the land value, the assessable site value, or whatever you care to call it. In a country like this you are not going to get the value, or that which is supposed to represent the value of the land, untouched by the hands of man. That is an hypothesis. It is an almost impossible thing to get. Discussion This afternoon followed the line as to how far back agricultural improvements should go, 200, 300, or 400 years, or fifteen or twenty years. I contend that if you really are going to get the true land value, you must go back to the days of Queen Boadicea, or even further. The land must be absolutely in its prairie condition. If you could get that you would be all right, but it is almost impossible in this country to get it. You might get it in Australia, New Zealand, the Argentine, or in Canada, but in this country you have the dykes, fences, ditches, Roman roads, other roads, and so forth, and you cannot get the absolute prairie value of the land. It is an hypothesis. I do not know anybody in this House, any Minister on the opposite side, who desires particularly to get the hypothetical value of the land, but I understand that 170 hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite want to have it. They are the driving power behind the Government. They want this value, and because they want it, I understand they are going to get it. Therefore, as a matter of fact, what we are going to get is this great Doomsday Book which is to be compiled at such a cost to the taxpayer of the country—a Doomsday Book based on an hypothesis. That may be fair or unfair, possible or impossible, wise or foolish; but at any rate it is asked for, and
404
I understand from a statement made today that it is going to be done.
There is one thing for which I give the single-tax party credit. They, at any rate, want a valuation not alone of house property, not alone of urban property, not of taxation, fair or unfair, but of rural land and agricultural land, as well as urban land; and again I think I am not misquoting them when I say they really do not care 2d. about Increment Value Duty or Reversion Duty or some of these other duties. They would like, if they could, to sweep away these taxes. These taxes stand in the way and are making this valuation unpopular. After all, these taxes have had their day: they won an election, and now they may cease to be. The hon. Members do not care particularly about the concession to the small builder or to anybody else. They have one object in view, and they say a greater object. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here. I have a quotation from a speech of his at Blackburn some time ago. In the course of it he said:—
"The Land Taxes of the Budget were firmly embedded in the constitution of the country as to their economic character. Land reformers … believed that a valuation had been accomplished, a value apart, from the buildings and improvements upon land, by which they would finally be enabled to secure a basis for rating and taxation fairer and more just than the basis upon which our rating and taxation now depends."
That is an absolutely frank statement. I do not know; I cannot make out whether or not hon. Members in this House consider that Clause 11 will give them that valuation. The hon. Member opposite, whom I hope will speak after me, and who is the leader of the party, will perhaps explain to us—to me, at any rate—where in his opinion Clause 11, which I understand was inserted especially to aid the views of his party, will do what they want. If they think it does not, why have it in the Bill at all? It will only add to the mystification of the Land Taxes Clauses. It will make one more value. We have twenty-five, and we shall then have twenty-six. Therefore, it is not worth it. I say, speaking from a non-party point of' view, that in this Revenue Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have missed an opportunity of simplifying things so that the ordinary man in the street who has got to pay this duty, and has to study his position, may understand where he is. I do not think that anybody in any part of the House wants these Land Taxes. They have

405
served their day, as I suggested before. Hon. Members on this side of the House would welcome a fair valuation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at that and scoff, but we want an ordinary "live-and-let-live" valuation and not what I should describe as a freak valuation, which is wanted by those hon. Members who advocate the single tax. That freak valuation, I am given to understand, will fix a datum line on which, in all other decades and centuries, we are going to have to base our local taxation. That is a very serious matter. I confess I do not myself think that the ordinary voter, the ordinary ratepayer and taxpayer, actually understands what is going to be done. I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken to make this valuation much simpler, for I, though not a professional man, would like to understand these taxes without having to have recourse to the legal profession.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire particularly to call attention to Clause 11 and the new proposals which it contains, or appears to contain, for the valuation of agricultural land. It must be apparent now, whatever may have been the case in the past, that the valuation set up by the famous Finance Act was wholly unsuited for the purpose of valuing agricultural land, and the deductions that were set out under Section 25 of that Act were of such a kind as to have no reference whatever to the improvements which have been carried out upon agricultural land in order to make it more fertile and to maintain its fertility. I am glad the Government have recognised this fact, but whether it is right to take the present course without explaining definitely what is the purpose for which they are now valuing agricultural land and for which they are now proposing to make certain deductions in order to arrive at the true site value of agricultural land, I have very serious doubts. However that may be, I judge, from the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, that the Government have definitely made up their minds to arrive at some site value of agricultural land which can be made the basis in future for either taxation or local rates. If that is so, it is most necessary in settling the terms of this particular Clause that we should so settle the Clause as to secure a deduction of the value of the different factors, which may be regarded as necessary permanent improvements.
406
As regards the period of thirty years to which these deductions are to be limited, I should like to remind the House what has happened during the thirty years prior to 1909. That covers the whole period of serious agricultural depression from which this country has so bitterly suffered. What has happened within that period? It is no exaggeration to say that during these thirty years there has been a fall of rent values in agricultural land by anything from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. I do not think any hon. Member will venture to contradict that statement. It is a modest estimate to put it at 60 per cent. depreciation. The fall in the capital value of agricultural land during that same period is variously put at from £400,000,000 up to anything between £800,000,000 or £900,000,000—that is in this period of thirty years. What has happened, in fact, as regards improvements during that period? I do not suppose there is any thirty years period that you could take during the last 200 years, during which so little has been done in the way of permanent improvement to agricultural land owing to the unfortunate fact that landowners have been so impoverished as to be unable to carry out improvements that they otherwise would have executed. During that period the whole of the landowners' available funds were directed towards maintaining their estates as best they could and also in farming land thrown upon their hands in consequence of inability to find tenants. The expenditure on permanent improvements during that period has been simply beggarly, and if that is going to be made the basis of deduction—that limited period of thirty years—a gross injustice is going to be done not merely to the landowners of this country, but to the industry of agriculture.
What is the nature of these improvements? Of course, during the last few years there has been a slight improvement in the condition of agriculture. We have heard a good deal about drainage this afternoon but the drainage has been most inadequate during the great portion of that period. It consisted largely of tiled drains of a most unsatisfactory kind and often the tiled drainage carried out was much too small in gauge. The drains got seriously choked, and will necessitate in the future most drastic alteration in the system of drainage. During the period, we will say of the last sixty years—and I wish particularly to include the period from 1840 or 1850 up to the first year of serious

407
depression, 1879—very considerable improvements were carried out on agricultural land throughout this country, and that period included to a large extent the more recent drainage in parts of the Fen country, and which included a system of making water meadows in various parts of England, particularly in Dorset, Wiltshire, and Berkshire. And may I remind the House in connection with these water meadows, that a good deal of the land now reckoned amongst the richest land in England was of little or no value until a very expensive scheme of irrigation was carried out. Some of these schemes of irrigation we know cost anything from £50 to £100 per acre, considerably more than the whole former value of the land. That was carried out, we will say, some forty or fifty years ago, but a large amount of it was carried out with borrowed money, and this applies to other kinds of permanent agricultural improvements which necessitated mortgages upon agricultural estates which have never been paid off up to this day, with the result that you have, in fact, what has become a permanent charge upon these properties. Where these improvements have been carried out you have a permanent charge in respect of which the owner for the time being is paying the interest upon a heavy loan even where the landowner himself has carried out these improvements.
Many cases, however, exist in England to-day, particularly as regards drainage and embankments, and river banks and sea walls, in which a public authority has carried out at very great expense these works of improvement, and has charged, and is still charging, a rate upon the district which has benefited by those improvements. In various parts of Yorkshire there is a drainage rate charged which in some cases is far in excess of the rent paid for the land, but it is worth the farmer's while to pay that rate in order to enjoy the commercial value to him of the drainage carried out at great expense some forty or fifty years ago. In my own district we have what is known as a Commission of Sewers. In Sussex the same body is known as the Commission of Levels. These various Commissions are responsible for laying out large sums of public money, which is borrowed, I believe, from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in order to protect low-lying land from the sea or the estuary of the river, as the case may be, and to prevent
408
it from being flooded and rendered unsuitable for agricultural purposes, and having done this a rate is charged upon the whole of the land which benefited from the expenditure on these sea walls or river banks, and this is a continuing charge upon the owners. If you are to say that no possible deduction is to be made in respect of improvements beyond the period of thirty years, you are going to rule out the largest and, commercially, most valuable improvements that have ever yet been carried out in connection with British agricultural land. Surely you cannot have a time limit with regard to all improvements. It is quite conceivable, and I admit it that improvements have been carried out and are being carried out, the life of which is not more than five years On the other hand, improvements of the class to which I have just directed attention may have been carried out from fifty to two hundred years ago, and may result in a continuing charge upon owners, and these I say are just as much entitled to receive the full deduction in arriving at site value as those carried out more recently which may not be of anything like the same value to the owners or the industry. Surely the true basis is whether there continues or does not continue an unexhausted value attached to those improvements. That is the basis upon which alone you can estimate deductions in respect of agricultural land, if you are seeking, as the result of such a valuation and such deductions, to place anything in the nature of a tax or rate upon such land. I want to refer to one absurdity of the existing system which may or may not be removed in consequence of this Bill. Curiously enough, under the present system of arriving at site value, you are in fact making deductions at any rate as regards fences in inverse ratio to the value of the structure. Take the case of walls. Under the present system no allowance, whatever is made for them, although in many parts of the country, like the Cotswold's, they are the invariable kind of fence dividing one field from another. In other parts, you find fields divided one from the other by high banks with a certain amount of fencing on the top in order to bind those banks together. That is the kind of fence you find in Cornwall, and in Devon. It is only that bit of green growing on the top that enables you to make any deduction, and you will not get more than one-fourth in respect of the value of such fences.

409
Coming to the better class of fence which is a hedge on a bank with a ditch on one side, and possibly on two sides, which constitutes what you regard in agriculture as the best fence you can have, as it is constituted partly of a bank and partly of a fence, you will probably get half its value deducted. Then we come to what you find in the Midlands, that is, a hedge upon level ground without any bank, and for that fence, because it happens to all be growing, you get a full deduction. You get the largest deduction in respect of what has cost the least to erect or produce, and that is clearly an absolutely anomalous system. I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to Clause 14 and the promise he made to local authorities of some benefit from the Land Taxes they were told they would ultimately enjoy from them, how long he is going to allow that promise to remain unfulfilled? This Clause puts the period off for another year, although they were promised that they would enjoy half the Land Taxes from the 31st March, 1914, and they are now being put off for a year longer. I do not think the local authorities will put up with much more of this procrastination at their expense. Owing to the Whisky Tax proving so unremunerative, it was found necessary to produce a new fund to enable local authorities to maintain their system of higher education. That was founded upon a most insufficient basis, because a year was chosen when the Whisky Duties produced less than they had done in the ten years preceding, and the local authorities have been considerably handicapped as regards higher education ever since. If the promised support from the Land Taxes is not forthcoming, and the President of the Board of Education is not prepared to make entirely new provision for education other than elementary, I am inclined to think that the local authorities will be unable to carry out with the public money at their disposal the serious duties which have been imposed upon them in this respect.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: Many references have been made in this debate to experiences as to the result of the taxes which appeared in the Budget of 1909 in reference to the land. We are not at all surprised at the result of those land taxes. First of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made so many concessions to the other side that every day, as the discussion proceeded, we were
410
afraid as to what the next concession was going to be. Our trouble is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a heart which is a little bit too big for his body, and when he is listening to the arguments of the hon. Member for Chelmsford we are not surprised at the result. When the 10 per cent. deduction was allowed on the valuation, everybody knew that it would make an enormous difference to the amount that would immediately come into the Treasury. That concession has been a great source of trouble to the Department to work out, and those who have to do the valuation—I am speaking from some inside knowledge—are perfectly certain that it would ease the working of the Act enormously if that 10 per cent. was taken away. I have never seen what reason there was for making that concession, and a good deal of the troubles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been caused by the concessions he has made to the hon. Members opposite.
I have been asked whether I am satisfied with Clause 11 or not. I say, quite frankly, that I am not satisfied with it. I do not think we shall get so far as I can see, under the Revenue Bill as it now stands, full site value, minus all the improvements. Until we get that, I do not hope for any alteration of our system of rating. I would rather have one single Clause which enables us to get full site value, with deductions for improvement, than anything else in the Bill, and, unless we get that, I say we shall be greatly disappointed, and I am not sure that the Bill will be worth anything at all to us. When we get into Committee, I shall do everything I can to get paragraph (b) transferred from Clause 4 to Clause 2. If that is done, then you will probably get full site value, and it can be done quite easily. I know any amount of landlords who have property which has never paid a single copper, because they have spent all their money on improvements. I think those men deserve every encouragement. You should have rating upon the full site value, and then you will get the best landlords to improve their property. At the present time, the moment the slightest improvement is made, the assessor comes along and says: "We must raise your assessment." Speaking as a man who owns agricultural land, and various other forms of land, I say that if you will adopt this system, you will give the greatest possible encouragement to the best class of men who hold land.

411
Now I come to another point which has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants. The hon. Member is a very great and severe critic of the taxation of land values. I have the advantage of holding different forms of land. I do not know whether he has. He told us that the population of Scotland is decreasing. I know why it is decreasing. I will give him an instance. A farmer in Forfarshire lost two of his best men. Why? Because the landlord could not afford to build cottages, and would not let them have land so that they could build them for themselves. Both these men had to leave that farm and go to Canada in order to get houses in which they could live. Can you conceive anything more appalling? We say that if the landlord holding land in that district was rated at the price he was asking for the land he would very soon part with it.
Let me give the House another case which affects not only agricultural land, but also land in towns. I am not speaking as a single-taxer at all. I am simply here for an alteration in the system of rating. Let me give a case of a contract, I signed myself, in this City of London. The insurance company with which I am connected got a lease in Queen Victoria Street of which there was fourteen years to run. We paid £2,000, and there was a rental of £850. We intended to convert this warehouse into offices. When the manager of the company brought the contract for me to sign, I read it over and I said, "Have you the landlord's permission to alter this property?" He said "What landlord will object to our spending £6,000 on his property when there is only fourteen years to run?" I said, "Well, I will sign, but I want to put it on record that the landlord will not allow you to touch the property." The moment intimation came to him that we intended to convert this warehouse into offices and spend £6,000, the landlord said, "I will not allow you to touch the property." The result was that he forced us to sign a new lease extended to thirty years, and we had to enter upon an obligation to spend £6,000 upon the property. Having spent £6,000 on the property, he immediately forced us to pay an increased rental. The rental was raised from £850 to £1,000 for the first five years; to £1,150 for the next five years, and to £l,300 for the following five years. We took over I the contract entitling us to that property
412
for fourteen years at a rental of £850, and in fifteen years' time he is going to draw £l,300. The next five years the rental is increased to £1,450, and the following five years to £l,600. The landlord has not spent a single copper on the property. We have spent over £6,000 upon it, and in twenty years he gets the rental increased from £850 to £1,600. He is not rated at all and never contributes a single farthing to the rates. Will anyone tell me that is a fair transaction? I say that it is not. I say that a transaction of that kind which can be carried out under the present system is a disgrace to a civilised country.
I am not here to preach a single tax. I am here to see justice done between two individuals, and that you should not have one rate for the man who possesses the land and another for the man who takes it. I could give scores of instances, every one of which I could vouch for, to show that the system is a disgrace to a civilised country. I know a case in the country where there is agricultural land and a colliery. The colliery, I am glad to say, has enormously developed, with the result that they have a day and night shift. Many of the colliers have to travel six miles before they get to the pit, and, when they get there, they have to walk four miles underground to get to their work. These people cannot get houses. They applied to the landlords, and one small landed proprietor said to them, "Why do you not build your own houses?" They said, "We cannot get the land." He replied, "Nonsense, I will let you have the land." He sold these colliers' land at 6d. per square yard, or, roughly, about £120 an acre. He really got about three times what it was worth as agricultural land. The colliers, I am pleased to say, took up the whole of that land, and there was sufficient to allow cottages to be built, with a good kitchen garden at the back and a nice flower garden in the front. They then applied to the landed proprietor on the other side of the street, and said, "We should like to buy land from you." He replied, "I shall be delighted." They said, "What is your price?" and he answered, "Three shillings and sixpence per square yard." He is asking these poor colliers to pay between £800 and £900 per acre for this land. Is that a fair system?
Let me point the moral. If these poor colliers took that land at 3s. 6d. per square yard, they would at once be rated at 3s. 6d. per square yard, but the land-

413
lord keeps the land which he says is worth 3s. 6d. per square yard, and he continues to be rated at 2d. Is that a fair system? Is that morally right? Is there any man anywhere who will say it is right, if a man retains possession of an article worth 3s. 6d., that he should be rated at 2d. whereas if another man took it, he would be rated at the full value. I say "No." A system which allows that to exist is a disgrace to any civilised country. What are these poor colliers doing because they could not afford to pay 3s. 6d. per square yard for this land? They are living Box and Cox. The night men sleep in the beds during the day and the day men sleep in them during the night. I know many men who cannot get married because they cannot get houses, and I know of cases of men who have got married and their wives still continue to live with their mothers and they with their fathers! Is that a system which can be tolerated in this country? I say that it is not. I appeal to any Gentleman on that side of the House. They love their country, and so do we, and we do not want to have one system for one man and another system for another man. We want simple equity and justice, and I defy anyone to point to a system which will give you that unless you have each man rated on the actual value of the land.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that this is not a rating Bill, and has nothing to do with rating.
Mr. PRICE: I do not wish, Sir, to contravene the rules of order, and all I have to say is that if this Bill does not help us to get an alteration in this matter, then it will not be of much use.
Mr. WHELER: I am certain that the picture which the hon. Member opposite has drawn of the condition of a colliery district of which I do not know the locality—of course, I do not question the facts—is not common in the life of the colliery districts. I have lived in a colliery district all my life, and I know many other colliery districts, and I know that such facts as the hon. Member speaks to do not obtain in the vast majority of them. I only wish to draw attention to one fact in reference to Clause 14. The local authorities are day by day becoming more in need of the means to carry out the various obligations which have been imposed upon them by the Act, and they feel very sore indeed that the advantage from half the land duties which was to be
414
given to them is to be further withheld from them. In the Memorandum which was circulated with this Bill the matter is alluded to in a very casual way. Right at the end it says "the Clause, therefore, merely substitutes," and dismisses it in that sort of way. In another year or so the local authorities are to get this long-promised assistance. They feel very sore about it, because nearly every Act of Parliament that has been passed has increased their obligations. Every Member of the House knows that the local authorities are passing resolutions calling upon the Government to do something to help them in the work they have to carry on, but the Government, instead of doing that are postponing to a later date the little assistance they expected from the Land Taxes. Hon. Members opposite, as well as on this side, must feel that the local authorities are not receiving proper help to enable them to carry out their most important work of administration throughout the length and breadth of the country. One other point, to which the hon. Member for Wilton referred—the deductions in respect of capital expenditure over a period of thirty years. The hon. Member alluded to the Commissioners of Levels and Sewers. I myself have been on the Commission for a good many years, and I can support to the full what the hon. Member said. If the Clause is to be carried out in respect of a period of thirty years, during which deductions are to be allowed, immense hardships will be caused, and hardships for which no reason can be shown. From the Debate we have had here to-day the Government must realise that they have made a great mistake in not introducing the Bill earlier in the Session. The topics which have been brought up, the vast range of subjects which come under this Bill, and the great importance of them, ought to convince the Government that this Revenue Bill is one of the most important that could have been brought forward, and is therefore deserving of attention much earlier in the Session. I hope the local authorities will take note of the way in which they have been treated under this Bill, and will realise that they have not much hope of help from the Government.
Mr. HOHLER: The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) told a pathetic story of the position in which an insurance company was placed by reason of the raising of rents. He told us he was

415
engaged in many occupations, and he must have been quite shrewd enough to know they made a good bargain—
Mr. J. WARD: What about the landlord?
Mr. HOHLER: I was not addressing the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. If he would refrain from the noisy interruptions in which he so often indulges it would be better for the orderly conduct of the Debate. I desire to add this, that the speech of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh showed a lamentable want of knowledge on the subject—indeed, as you pointed out to him, the Bill does not mainly deal with rating: it does so only incidentally. I desire to add my protest against Clause 11, because, in my view, it is exceedingly important that no valuation should be made which may prove valueless. I desire especially to call attention to the provision in the latter part, which says:—
"The Commissioners shall, as respects any valuation made or commenced before the commencement of this Act, make such adjustments as are necessary to bring the valuation in accordance with this Section as soon as may be after the 31st day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
I protest against the Motion that no matter whose property is valued, or whether a valuation has already been made, the owner or occupier, the lessor or lessee shall not have the fullest and amplest opportunity of presenting his case in regard to the proposed valuation. One finds that such important subjects as seawalls in Kent, the sewers and levels of Romney Marsh, and all the Statutes dealing with them, dating back from the time of Henry VIII., are entirely left out of consideration in arriving at the site value of the land, and I suggest it is exceedingly inappropriate in a Revenue Bill of this kind to make provision for a valuation in regard to agricultural land, without having due regard to existing taxation, and to something which may or may not become the law hereafter. I hope that in Committee we shall give consideration to these points, and discuss whether this Clause shall continue to form part of the Bill.
I want to draw attention to Clause 2 of this Bill. I may be wrong, but I do not understand how the Clause can ever be made to work. So far as I understand the Finance Act, 1909–10, the only occasion on which you ascertain the gross value of a
416
property is for the purpose of arriving at the site value under Section 25. When you have once got the original site value under Section 25, then under the subsequent valuation proposed in Section 2 of the Act, the gross valuation only enters in connection with any subsequent valuation. All you get under Section 25 is the gross value, the full site value, and then the total value, so the total value and the assessable site value becomes the site value for the purpose of your valuation. When you come to the occasion on which Increment Duty is payable you substitute for the site value the consideration for sale. I am taking now the case of the sale of a freehold. You substitute for that the price you get for the freehold. To arrive at the site value for the purpose of comparison with the original site value ascertained under Section 25, all that you do is to make the deductions that have to be made under that Section from the total value. The gross value never enters into it at all. In other words, gross value is the value used for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value, and once used for that purpose it never enters into subsequent calculations of any kind for the purpose of Increment Value Duty. What is proposed in Clause 2 is:—
"Where it appears to the Commissioners on any occasion for the calculation of Increment Value Duty, which is a transfer on sale…that the amount of the gross value of the land is more than double the amount of the full site value of the land,"
and so on. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy explain how it is to be made to appear to the Commissioners that the gross value of the land is more than double the full site value? I cannot find any machinery to bring the gross value into account for the purpose of comparison. If there is none, this Clause is absolutely valueless for any purpose. If I am right, and there is no increment as ascertained under Sections 2 or 3 of the Act of 1909–10, how is it to be made to appear to these Commissioners that the gross value is more than double the full site value? To what gross value does it refer? It is not to be ascertained on the occasion at all. All you do on the occasion is to substitute for original site value the consideration for the sale of the property. In my view, this Clause as proposed is wholly illusory, and, when it comes to be construed, it will be found not to work at all. If there is some advantage in it, it should be worked out. I

417
agree with the criticism that it should not be limited to land for which somebody gives what is called the market price. Why should it not apply to all land?
In regard to the White Paper which has been circulated, I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used the words "market value." I protest against the notion that the use of the words "market value" is correct. It assumes that the value you get under the Finance Act is the market value. It is nothing of the kind. The nearest approach you get to market value in the Finance Act is total value. Nobody here will get up and say that that is the market value of a property. It is arrived at upon a wholly arbitrary basis, after making the deductions and additions and calculating the value of the tithe, the rent charge, easements, rights of way, public footpaths, and things of that kind. Who on earth, when he goes to buy property, could make a calculation as to what would be the cost of redeeming tithe, or the extinction of a public footway, or anything of that kind? The result is, although we are told it is market value, you never get anything like market value under the Finance Act 1909–10. The real fallacy of the Act of 1909–10 is that in my view the whole system of valuation is purely arbitrary. It has no real relation to the market price. No one ever valued a property on that basis and you get a wholly fictitious figure and the gross value, the site value and the total value. Having got these figures you compare them with what really is the nearest approach to the market price that you can possibly get, which is that which the property commands when it is sold. The net result of that is that constant injustice is done, as has been shown in the Lumsden case, and I ask for some explanation as to how Clause 2 will possibly work or be of any value to anyone.
Then I wish to draw attention to Clause 3. I understand the object of the Clause, which is a laudable one, is to induce people to build more cottages and other houses which are really required. I want to understand why the limitations proposed by the Clause are inserted. The benefit intended should not be limited to a case in which you sell the property you develop within two years or to cases limited to a period of five years from the commencement of your work. In other words, there is a great number of people who cannot afford to buy a house, and it
418
seems to me that either the owner, or it may be the builder who develops land and lets his property on lease or by weekly agreement, is equally entitled to the benefit of Clause 3 as any other person. But here the benefit conferred is solely limited, if, in fact, he sells within five years of his commencing the development. What is the object of that? In regard to our industrial class, equally whether they own cottages or houses of higher value, a great many of them, even if they could afford to buy, would find it would not suit their purpose, because they have not got security of employment in the particular district. Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer see his way to extend the benefits conferred by Clause 3 to anyone who develops his land, even though he does not, in fact, sell his houses?
The real difficulty created by the Finance Act is insecurity in the tenure of property, the uncertainty of this taxation, the proof we have had that this taxation will fall on the man who has developed his land even though the value of the land is not increased by ½d., and that has resulted to a large extent in stagnation. People will not build; they will not invest their capital in land so long as this uncertainty exists. These Amendments have been introduced for this purpose, and the man who, in fact, develops his land by building cottages or other property of that kind should be equally entitled to exemption from these taxes or the chance of them as the man who develops and sells within five years. I can see no good reason for the limitation of that period of time, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he cannot do something to meet us on these points. I welcome this Bill because it will to a large extent, though not by any means entirely, remove a just grievance which is felt in regard to the taxation imposed by the Act of 1910. But I further think that it is really the first admission on the part of the Government that these taxes have failed in their purpose. When I heard the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others on the opposite side say that it was premature to regard these taxes as a failure, and that nothing could be expected in the first five years, I did not know how much they expected in the next five years. All I say is that nobody has forgotten the statement of the Chancellor of the

419
Exchequer in which he told us that these taxes were to finance old age pensions and to build "Dreadnoughts." There is no prospect of their doing the one or the other this year, next year, or ever.
Mr. CASSEL: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why an express undertaking which he gave me has not been carried out. On 10th July I raised a question with regard to the payment of Income Tax on Members' salaries, and in reply the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"I propose, too, to go beyond that; also, in order to carry out the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee I propose to have a Clause inserted in the Revenue Bill which will put in legislative form something that will regularise not merely our proceedings in reference to the £400, but the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goschen, for, after all, this criticism is directed against these two great financiers. The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Public Accounts Committee seem to take up the attitude of criticism, and in order to put Sir Robert Peel right, we propose to insert a Clause in the Revenue Bill of this year,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July,1913,col.754.]
I am not going to discuss whether what the right hon. Gentleman has done is similar to what was done by Sir Robert Peel or Mr. Goschen. I do not think it is, but the right hon. Gentleman having given that express undertaking when I moved the Adjournment of the House—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure whether Amendments regarding Income Tax are relevant to the Finance Bill. If they are germane to the Finance Bill, there are two or three which we mean to move ourselves. I will either move it on the Finance Bill or on this Bill. If I do not move it there, I will certainly move it here.
Mr. CASSEL: If the right hon. Gentleman says that if he does not move it on this Bill he will move it on the other, that is satisfactory to me, because I wish to have an opportunity for discussing it when it is moved. As to this Bill, I propose on Clauses 11 and 14 to offer a strenuous opposition in Committee. So far as Clause 11 is concerned, I base my resistance on this: You are here asking people to have an entirely fresh valuation made, or you are to have a new column set up of enormous expense with respect to seven-eighths of the land. Landowners will have to get complicated questions of interpretation decided, and they may have to go to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. You will have to reopen every valuation which has been made, and you are going to put everybody to the trouble of raising
420
fresh objections before you have made up your mind whether the valuation is going to be used or not. I hope the House, before we put all these people to this expense and worry, with the possibility of litigation, will say that the Government ought to make up their mind whether we are to have rating on the site value or not. We have been told to-day that it would be out of order to discuss the question whether rating on site value should be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he has not made up his mind on that or was not prepared on behalf of the Government to put it forward as their proposal. In that state of affairs what right have you to put people to all this expense and trouble, when it is possible that we may continue to go on rating on the basis of income. If it is intended to have a valuation made for the purpose of rating we ought first of all decide that we mean to rate on site values, and it should be done in a proper Valuation Bill for that purpose, and not brought in by a side wind in one of the Clauses of this Bill, where it is entirely misunderstood. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an example of one landowner who, he told us, he thought was a Unionist. I think that some of these landowners entirely misunderstand the effect of this Clause. They all think that it has some effect on the land valuations done as they are under the Finance Act. They have no such effect whatever. What they really want and what we have been asking for from this side of the House is that the Increment Duty should in the ease of agricultural land be assessed on the difference between agricultural land and this site value on the occasion, and not as between original site value and the site value on the occasion. This Clause brings in, in a way which is not understood, for the first time a valuation the avowed purpose of which is the rating of site values. I submit that to put people to the expense and trouble which this involves is unfair to them and exposes them to burdens to which they ought not to be exposed by the Government.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. LLOYD GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill to be considered in Committee of the Whole House to-morrow (Wednesday).

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
  Part II.—CENTRAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITY.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Central Authority.)
    The Board of Control hereinafter constituted shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be charged with the general superintendence of matters relating to the supervision, protection, and control of defectives:
    Provided that, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, nothing in this Act shall affect any power exercise-able with respect to lunatics by the Lord Chancellor or the Commissioners in Lunacy, or the Judge or Masters in Lunacy, or by any visitors, court, local authority or other persons, whether under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, or otherwise.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    This is the only Amendment which I have put on the Paper. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to make some announcement which will remove any grounds of objection to this Clause. I recognise fully that most points that were put before the Government last year have been met with a reasonable spirit, and consequently I have not seen fit to resume my opposition. My view with regard to the treatment of the suffering poor is that instead of setting up a new authority very largely composed of the old Lunacy Board there ought to be young men, not identified with past policy, to undertake what is a new experiment in the development of State policy. My view is expressed almost word for word by the representative managers of the London County Council elementary schools committee in the following pronouncement:—
    "That they could not accede to the request to urge the Government to pass the Bill without amendment, and while they feel great satisfaction that the Government have introduced a measure dealing with the mentally deficient, they cannot support the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons without amendment on the ground, among others, that a new and expensive authority is proposed instead of giving increased powers to existing authorities."
    422
    That would be my own view in a concise form. It has not found favour, and it only remains for me to ask how far the Home Secretary can see his way within the limits of the machinery upon which he has determined to answer some of the criticisms which I have to offer. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to be good enough to announce to the House what salary he proposes to fix for the new Commissioners.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member is moving the Amendment which stands on the Paper, or whether he is moving to leave out Clause 21?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is moving to leave out Clause 20.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: That does not deal with this point.
    Mr. BOOTH: Clause 21 could not possibly receive consideration unless Clause 20 were in the Bill, and as this Clause sets up the Board of Control I think it is a convenient point at which we might ask for a statement. I should think the proper remuneration for the Members of this new Board should have been £1,000. I think that is sufficient instead of £l,500. In addition to the question of salary, I hope the Home Secretary will tell us how many additional Commissioners he will appoint, and how many will be women. Originally there was only provision for one woman, and I think Members on both sides would desire that there should be a paid woman Commissioner, and I would like to know whether the woman would be only an unpaid Commissioner. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to meet these criticisms, and if I get any reasonable concession I will withdraw my opposition.
    Mr. LEACH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so for the reason stated, so that the Home Secretary may have the opportunity of making a statement concerning this Clause.
    Mr. McKENNA: I really am obliged to my hon. Friends for giving me a formal opportunity of stating fully to the House what it is I propose to ask the Treasury to sanction with regard to the appointment of the paid Commissioners under this Bill. There is power taken under the ensuing Clause 21 to appoint twelve paid Commissioners and three unpaid Commissioners. I propose only to ask for at the

    423
    present time, and by the present time I mean such time as I shall be responsible for my present office, the appointment of eleven out of the twelve paid Commissioners. That will suffice for the immediate work for some years to come. Of those eleven one will be a woman, and eight more of the eleven will be existing Lunacy Commissioners, and, as the House knows, four of them must be by Statute doctors, and four others must be practising barristers or solicitors of at least five years' standing. There remain over and above the existing Lunacy Commissioners and the one "woman two other appointments to make, one of whom, whether of the new or of the existing Lunacy Commissioners, will be Chairman, whose salary is not defined in the Bill, but it is my intention to ask the Treasury to sanction a salary of £1,800 per year to the Chairman. With regard to the remaining paid Commissioners, I propose to ask the Treasury to sanction not more than £1,200 a year as the commencing salary, with an increment as time goes on. Under the Bill, under no circumstances will the salary of the Commissioners exceed £l,500 a year. I hope that with that statement my hon. Friend will be satisfied. If there are any other points which are not clear, I will deal with them on succeeding Clauses.
    Mr. J. WARD: I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman will make some Members open their eyes. After the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, in which he spoke of the host of paid locusts which the Government have brought into existence since they came into office, how they could not bring in a Bill dealing even with the most trifling subject without having a gang of hangers-on with huge salaries, and how almost every proposal they brought before the House was for the purpose of supplying soft jobs to someone or other. I should think, if there is any honour in the Opposition, they will fight this part of the Bill to the death. So far as I am concerned, this portion of the business must be seriously scrutinised before it is allowed to pass. Why are there to be such extraordinary salaries of £l,200, rising to £1,500, for these Commissioners? Why are nearly all the Commissioners to be doctors or lawyers? What is there special about doctors and lawyers? I am speaking now about management, not certification.
    Mr. McKENNA: The eight Lunacy Commissioners, as they now exist, are, as to four, lawyers, and as to four, doctors. That is under the existing Lunacy law, and their existing salary is £1,500 a year. I do not appoint them.
    Mr. J. WARD: I could understand it if the right hon. Gentleman had said that these gentlemen should be the Board for the future. But he is adding to their number and giving soft jobs to four or five others, who also, I suppose, will be doctors and lawyers. It is evidently a sort of understood business that nobody but doctors and lawyers understand lunatics and mental deficiency. I dare say there is a reason why they should be the only people who understand these matters and should be certain of getting these jobs. We have had speeches tonight indicating a close connection with the subject under discussion. There ought to be some sort of honour in the criticisms of the Opposition in relation to this continuous creation of jobs. I do not deny that in most of the things they have hitherto done I entirely agree with the Government. For instance, in relation to old age pensions, everyone knows that there must be somebody to inquire into the cases. Other matters that we have decided upon there must be officials to carry them out. But here is a subject of governmental and municipal work that has had to be carried for years. Hitherto eight Commissioners have been sufficient. I did not understand what the right hon. Gentleman said their salaries were—
    Mr. McKENNA: £l,500.
    Mr. J. WARD: So far as their salaries are concerned, they are not increased; only the numbers are to be increased?
    Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA assented.
    Mr. J. WARD: I understood, too, that the salaries are not fixed at the full figures, but rise by increments to the £l,500, the present maximum. Still, some member of the Government should give a reason why the increase of the number of these Commissioners should be made. Why cannot the Board of Control he these eight?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is an Amendment down.
    Mr. J. WARD: Criticisms are certainly being made by Members of the Opposition. I wish I had brought with me a

    425
    speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in which he said that the Government could not propose a single measure dealing with anything unless there was a horde of paid officials. The country, he said, was being overrun with a horde of paid officials. The right hon. Gentleman described them as a crowd of locusts. We have then the same thing again to-night. Most certainly I agree with the principles of the Bill, and that we must do something to control the thing, and to establish some kind of national organisation for dealing with these unfortunate people, but there should be some justification for increasing officials with huge salaries.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I entirely concur with the ramarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I protest against the continuous increase of paid officials under this Government, and I shall certainly vote against the proposal. I have on more occasions than one protested against this particular Clause. I should like to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept an Amendment that I have on the Paper. It proposes that the number of paid Commissioners should be eleven, not twelve. Instead of appointing four new paid Commissioners you only appoint three. That would, I think, really carry out the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McKENNA: Might I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should defer his remarks till he moves his Amendment.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I understand we are discussing the whole question of the Board of Control. I have already deferred my remarks on several occasions, only later to find, to my great regret, that the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure.
    Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA dissented.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Unless you, Mr. Speaker, call me to order, I shall certainly continue and finish my remarks.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may continue his remarks, but I hope he will not repeat them.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I will not. If I am allowed to make my remarks on this Amendment I certainly have no intention of repeating them on a subsequent Amendment. By appointing three instead of four paid Commissioners, we really are carrying out the
    426
    intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, who has told us that three Commissioners are sufficient at the present time. If more Commissioners are required it is perfectly easy to appoint them; it was done only two years ago in the case of the Lunacy Commissioners. There were six Lunacy Commissioners up to that date, and they were increased to eight. If that could be done in the case of the Lunacy Commissioners I see no reason why in a few years hence it could not be done in the case of the Commissioners under this Bill. It will not be necessary for a long time, in my opinion, to appoint a fourth Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that in the early days the work of organisation will be extremely heavy; that is to say, it will be heavy to start with, and if it is necessary at any moment to have a fourth Commissioner, surely, one would think it would be when the work is extremely heavy. Therefore, there would be more reason for appointing a fourth Commissioner now than at a later period. I have another objection to this Clause It is proposed to appoint four Medical Commissioners only under this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman told us there were to be four Medical Commissioners and four legal Commissioners; he does not propose to increase the number of Medical Commissioners. The questions these Commissioners will have to decide will, to a very large extent, be medical questions. Whether a man is defective, whether a man belongs to the idiot or the imbecile, or morally defective class, is purely a medical question and cannot be decided by any one else but a medical man. The right hon. Gentleman told us the present Lunacy Commissioners had their hands full and therefore he wanted three new Commissioners. If that is the case the proportion of Medical Commissioners under this Bill ought to be the same as under the Lunacy Act. I know there are Members like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who have the question of liberty of the subject on the brain, who very strongly object to the appointment of new Commissioners, but I can assure him that the pressure of these medical Commissioners will be the greatest safeguard and protection for the liberty of the subject. There is one other point with regard to retaining the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. Under this Bill it is proposed that Medical Commissioners are to be appointed by the

    427
    Lord Chancellor, and the other Commissioners are to be appointed by the Home Secretary. In the Committee upstairs we did our best to remove that dual control. We wanted one Minister to be responsible fur the appointment and work of those Commissioners, and we wanted that Minister to be responsible to the House of Commons. I think that is of the utmost importance. Both the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary when it suits them, quote the Report of the Royal Commission. But the Royal Commission recommended that the Commissioners for Mental Deficiency should be appointed not by the Lord Chancellor but by the Home Secretary and the Minister responsible to this House, and they said:—
    "The Secretary of State for the Home Department is in our view under the Act of l890, placed in n position of final responsibility. We conclude, therefore, that he rather than the Lord Chancellor should appoint the members of the Board."
    I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman in the first place that he is willing to reduce the number of paid Commissioners to eleven, and in the second place that he is prepared to do away with this quite unnecessary power given to the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. BOOTH: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Establishment of Commissioners.)
    (1) There shall be constituted a Board of Control consisting of not more than fifteen Commissioners, of whom not more than twelve shall be paid Commissioners, and of the paid Commissioners four shall be legal Commissioners (that is to say, practising barristers or solicitors of at least five years' standing) and four at least shall be medical Commissioners (that is to say, duly qualified medical practitioners of at least five years' standing) and at least one of the paid and one of the unpaid Commissioners shall be a woman.
    (2) The Commissioners shall be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation, as respects the legal Commissioners, of the Lord Chancellor, and, as respects the other Commissioners, of the Secretary of State; and in making such recommendation regard shall be had to the desirability of the inclusion amongst the Commissioners of persons specially quali-
    428
    fied to hold inquiries amongst Welsh-speaking persons.
    (3) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the Commissioners to be chairman.
    (4) The Board of Control so constituted shall be a body corporate by the name of "the Board of Control," with a common seal and with power to hold land without licence in mortmain for the purpose of their powers and duties.
    (5) If the Secretary of State so directs and subject to any Regulations made by him, the Board shall appoint an administrative committee, and to such committee shall be entrusted such of the administrative powers and duties of the Board as are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
    (6) Subject as aforesaid, any act or thing required or authorised by this Act to be done by the Board or the Commsisioners may be done by any one or more of the Commissioners as the Secretary of State may by general or special order direct.
    (7) There shall be paid to the Chairman and such number, not exceeding eleven, of the Commissioners as the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine, such salaries or other remuneration as the Secretary of State, with the like consent, may fix: Provided that in the case of the Commissioners other than the Chairman such salary shall not exceed the sum of fifteen hundred pounds a year, but may begin at such lower sum as the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury may fix.
    (8) The Chairman and paid Commissioners shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. The unpaid Commissioners shall hold office for such term as the Secretary of State may determine.
    (9) The persons who immediately before the commencement of this Act hold office as paid Commissioners in Lunacy, shall, by virtue of their office, become as from the commencement of this Act paid Commissioners of the Board of Control, and shall, notwithstanding anything in this Section, continue to hold their offices by the like tenure and be entitled to the like salary as if they continued to hold the same offices as they held before the commencement of this Act.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "twelve" ["twelve shall be paid Commissioners"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second this Amendment. Hon. Members know perfectly well when we increased the number of judges the Government proposed a Resolution and they found no difficulty in passing it. The position of these Commissioners is analogous, and the same pressure might be brought to bear to increase this Board of Control. It is important that we should retain the control of this House over finance, and if we hand over to the Home Office a vague power to increase the Board of Control as they think fit we are giving up a power which we have no right to surrender and which we ought to maintain. I think under the circumstances hon. Members ought to vote for the smaller number of Commissioners. When this Bill was going through Committee a concession was made by the Home Secretary which I was sorry he did make. It was that one of these three extra Commissioners should be a Welsh-speaking person. I think we might also have had one thoroughly acquainted with the classes with whom this Bill is going to deal. This Bill is to deal with the lower orders, and under these circumstances one of those Commissioners should be a person particularly associated with the lower orders who understands their feelings, rather than a person who merely understands the Welsh language. When one of these three Commissioners is to be handed over to Wales it makes out a stronger case for limiting the number. It may also be said that there is also need of a Commissioner for the trade unionists. I am confident that on every ground it is only right that "eleven" should be inserted in the Bill, and we should retain the power of checking any undue prodigality on the part of any future Government in this connection.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think that I can inform the hon. Member very briefly why it is necessary to take power to appoint twelve, although I undertake only immediatly to exercise power up to the number of eleven. There will at the beginning be a great deal of administrative work to do which will necessarily fall largely upon the new appointees. Later, when there will be less administrative work, there will be a great many more mentally deficient persons to look after. The probable limit of the immediate work under this Bill will be about 30,000 mentally deficient persons, but as years go by we shall have to deal with upwards of 100,000, and it is quite obvious, in
    430
    view of the necessity of personal inspection by the Commissioners, whose duty it is to safeguard the liberty of the subject, that it is essential we should have power to increase the number from eleven to twelve. I hope that answer will be satisfactory.
    Mr. STEWART: I think one good reason why the figure in the Bill which was put in after serious consideration both by the Committee and the Government should stand is that the three Gentlemen who have Amendments on the Paper seem to have five different opinions as to what number of Commissioners there should be. The fact that they ask for five different numbers shows that they do not know what they want. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) about the advisability of not spending public money unnecessarily, but he has forgotten that these three new Commissioners will have 66,000 persons, or 22,000 each, to look after. We ought also to remember that those we are looking after are children and people who are perfectly unable to look after themselves. You can spoil a ship for a halfpenny worth of tar, and I think that it would be a mistake to act parsimoniously with regard to the Commissioners who are to look after these people.
    Mr. J. WARD: I am bound to confess that the statement of the Home Secretary does not satisfy me. His statement, was to the effect that for some considerable time, for at least two or three years, there will only be about 30,000 people who will come under the control of this Board.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is in addition. There will be 30,000 additional under this Bill.
    Mr. J. WARD: I quite understand. That is what I mean. Later, there will be some 100,000 people to deal with. That does not seem to me in any way to justify the extension of the Commission to the extent proposed. There are eight Commissioners at the present time, and you purpose practically to put on a third. Really, I think in face of the opinions that have been expressed with reference to the way in which the Government have proposed to increase the employment of paid officials, that the Home Secretary and the Government should consider whether they are going to give their opponents another chance. I can quite understand that their opponents are delighted, espe-

    431
    cially if it is to be doctors and lawyers all the time. It is providing soft jobs for professional people, the very classes who support this kind of legislation. Considering the violent criticisms that have been passed during the last few years with regard to the number of officials the Government have brought into existence, I do think that the Government should not have asked for any more paid officials than were absolutely necessary for the time being. If necessity shows later on that other officials are required that will be taken into consideration. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is being led by the hon. Gentlemen opposite into a false position altogether. We recognise the necessity for organising this central body, but, on the admission of the Home Secretary himself, there will be no necessity during the term of the present Government for any more of these officials. Then why put them in the Bill?
    Mr. POINTER: I rise for the purpose of asking the Home Secretary whether he will tell us what number of persons are now under the control of the Lunacy Commission. We have heard taunts from the other side about appointments, but they do not trouble me in the least, if I am convinced of their desirableness. In this case, however, it does appear to me that the Lunacy Commissioners are a type of officials who are not in the least overworked, and I should like to know what will be the number of persons under the control of the Commissioners compared with the number now being dealt with by them, and the increase which is expected when this Bill becomes law. I think if the right hon. Gentleman could keep down the number of Commissioners it would be all to the good. My hon. Friend pointed out that if eleven are sufficient now, why not put eleven in the Bill, and wait until the working of the Act shows whether other Commissioners are necessary. It would be a very easy matter then to add to their number just as we have been adding to the number of judges as they were wanted.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can tell my hon. Friend at once. At the present time the
    Lunacy Commissioners have something over 130,000 to deal with. We are appointing additional Commissioners in order to deal with a further 30,000, besides which they will have, in the early days, very heavy administrative work to do. We expect, also, that the 30,000 will be increased to 100,000, and we are making the additional appointments to deal with the total number.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: It does not seem to me that the Home Secretary's statement is really convincing. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said, and I am very glad to see that he has been so much influenced by the speech of my right hon. Friend. It is eminently true that almost every constructive measure passed by this Government has resulted in an enormous addition to the Civil Service staff in one form or another. It is a very large departure from the old Liberal watchwords, "Retrenchment and Reform." Let me deal with what the Home Secretary has said. He tells us that the eight Lunacy Commissioners have to deal with approximately 120,000 persons. I am told there are 137,000 lunatics. He is adding three more who are to deal with 30,000, or, as others estimate, considerably less. The right hon. Gentleman assumes, I do not know on what ground, that they may ultimately have to deal with 100,000, but that is pure assumption based, so far as I can see, on no solid fact. If eight Commissioners are able to deal with 137,000 lunatics, surely it does not want three to deal with 30,000. One ought to be able to deal with 17,000, in the same way as each of the existing eight Commissioners does. I submit it is quite unnecessary to add this number of Commissioners to deal with the additional 30,000, and I would strongly urge from the point of view of my right hon. Friend, who does not wish to add unduly to the members of the Civil Service whom the nation has to pay, that we should resist the attitude of the Government in this particular matter and vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Question put, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 91.

    Division No. 225.]

    AYES.

    [11.23 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Agg-Gardnar, James Tynte

    Arnold, Sydney

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Astor, Waldorf

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Dowd, John

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Malley, William

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Barton, William

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Shee, James John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brace, William

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, Michael

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cave, George

    Keating, Matthew

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    King, Joseph

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Clough, William

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rowlands, James

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Leach, Charles

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cotton, William Francis

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cullinan, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sheehy, David

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

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Shortt, Edward

    Dawes, James Arthur

    McGhee, Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Delany, William

    Maclean, Donald

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sutherland, John E.

    Dillon, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Doris, William

    Manfield, Harry

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Duffy, William J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Meagher, Michael

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Middlebrook, William

    Webb, H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molloy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Field, William

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morrell, Philip

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Muldoon, John

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Munro, Robert

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Glanville, Harold James

    Murphy, Martin J.

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

    Goldstone, Frank

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Young, William (Perth, East)

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hackett, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Barnes, George N.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    434

    435

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gwynne. R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bird, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Boyton, James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hodge, John

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Butcher, John George

    Hohler, G. F.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sutton, John E.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Clynes, J. R.

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    De Forest, Baron

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newman, John R. P.

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nield, Herbert

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    O'Grady, James

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Gibbs, George Abraham

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Younger, Sir George

    Grant, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Peto, Basil Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Wedgwood.

    Gretton, John

    Pointer, Joseph

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and four at least shall be medical Commissioners (that is to say only qualified practitioners of at least five years standing.)"
    What I regard as the principal danger of this Bill is the control of this Board by the medical profession. Eugenist doctrines are at present confined, more or less to doctors and bishops, and I certainly do not want to see a close corporation formed in control of all the mentally defective persons of the country in the hands of this Eugenist Society. We know perfectly well what their views are. They are that the working classes ought to be better bred, like poultry, by careful selection of parents. I do not believe that view has yet, at any rate, been accepted by the House of Commons, whatever it may be by the bench of bishops. Certainly we are giving an opportunity to the medical profession which I do not think we have a right to put into their hands by stipulating for a Board of Control. After all, the Board of Control is the Board which will mould the whole future of this Act. It will not apply to the Home Secretary or the House of Commons. The future of this Act is the future of all these people, and it will be in the hands of this Board of Control, and if that Board of Control is overwhelmingly in the hands of these people who have this bee in their bonnets that everything is to be sacrificed to the future of the race, and that the first and most important thing is to see that mentally defective persons of all sorts are carefully segregated so that
    436
    they cannot breed, I think it a bad look out for the country. After all, these doctrines of heredity, which are so popular among some persons at the present day, are not universally accepted. We all know perfectly well that views which are in great favour with medical practitioners one year are out of favour with them a few years afterwards. Medical science is subject to changes, and we do not desire to put defective persons under the charge of a set of doctors who might hold opinions on mental defectiveness unfavourable to the working classes. So, far from stipulating that a certain number of members shall be of this character, we should at all events leave the Government to choose whom they will rather than select doctors for this job.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): My hon. Friend has rather a prejudice against doctors just as some people have a prejudice against lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "And against bishops."] My hon. Friend thinks that these doctors will be Eugenists. There is really no reason why he should come to that conclusion at all. The House knows that the Lunacy Acts have worked wonderfully well. Very few cases of mistake have occurred in the difficult administration of these Acts. I should have thought that if there was one class essential on a Board of this kind that class was the medical profession. Lawyers may or may not be necessary. They generally are. My hon. Friend says that medical

    437
    science changes. So do the doctors. He says a doctor may have a bee in his bonnet. I think that is the last word of reproach which should be directed against a doctor. Let the hon. Gentleman remember that the Bill says that four-fifteenths of the Board shall belong to the medical profession. Does he not see that if there are four with bees in their bonnets the other eleven, who have beeless bonnets, will be free from prejudice? I think the hon. Member is sincere in his opposition to the Bill, but if he wishes to protect the poor as well as the rich the best way would be to get medical men on the Board in order to bring to bear on the great questions with which the Board will have to deal knowledge as to whether persons are properly placed in institutions and whether they should be retained there.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The stipulation is that there must be at least four members of the medical profession, but there might be far more. Why stipulate that there should be four? There was a long letter in the "Times" the other day, signed by doctors, suggesting that there should be means provided for experiments on the mentally defective to see if they could not be cured. I believe a great many vivisectionists are opposed to experiments on these people. I think it extremely undesirable on that ground also that there should be an overwhelming representation of the medical profession.
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "hold inquiries among Welsh-speaking persons," and to insert instead thereof the words "possess the confidence of the working classes."
    However desirable it may be that one of these Commissioners should be acquainted with the Welsh language it is more important that one of them should be of a class in touch with the working classes. Doctors and lawyers will certainly not belong to that class and it is desirable to have at least one Commissioner who is intimately connected with a trade union or a friendly society. You have got to have this measure worked to a certain extent in connection with the Insurance Act, the Poor Law authorities and the county councils, and in creating a Board such as this you should have people of broad sympathies and wide ideas who are in close sympathy with the people with whom they have got to deal.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the last three lines of the next Section. There is no proviso that one of the persons to be appointed should speak the Welsh language. What is said is that in making recommendations for future appointment by the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary, regard should be had to the desirability of the inclusion among the Commissioners of persons who are specially qualified to hold inquiries among Welsh speaking persons. It is obviously desirable where these conditions allow that one or more Commissioners should be qualified to hold enquiries among Welsh speaking persons. Of course that does not include any guarantee that one of the Commissioners to be appointed will be a speaker of Welsh. With regard to the necessity for being in touch with the working classes, it is quite clear that every Commissioner who is appointed ought to possess the confidence of the working classes, but it is not in our power to command their confidence, and I do not think it would be desirable to include in the qualifications of any person what other persons may think about him.
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "Chairman" ["Chairman and such number"], to insert the words "a salary of one thousand five hundred pounds a year."
    The salary of £l,500 a year seems to me to be sufficient. The person who at present performs the functions of chairman of the Lunacy Commissioners gets £l,500 a year and I do not see why any change should be made in that respect. £1,800 a year is a very big salary. If you can get what you want for £l,500 I do not see why you should give £300 more. I am against paying bigger salaries than are necessary to public officials as we should not be generous at the expense of the taxpayers of the country. The House should remember that the salaries are by no means the full amount of remuneration, as there are travelling expenses and remuneration, and most of the work is, I believe, travelling work. We are in this case unnecessarily generous.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

    439
    I was astonished to hear the hon. Member say that if we get a person at £l,500 we ought not to pay more. The country used to get the hon. Member's services for nothing and now they have got to pay £400 per year. I wish to support this Amendment because the right hon. Gentleman told us that the ordinary Commissioner was going to get £1,200 and therefore I think it is sufficient for the chairman to get £l,500.
    Mr. McKENNA: I said at the beginning.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: The present Lunacy Commissioners get £l,000 and I see no object in increasing the salaries of the new Commissioners.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: There is no fixed salary in the Bill in respect of the chairman. If the right man is obtained and does not want £1,800 per year, we shall be very pleased to take it back. The chairman of the present Commissioners gets £1,800 and the others a thousand, so that relatively he gets a much higher salary than is proposed under this Bill. I suggest to the House not to fix a salary, and it is not likely that the Treasury will sanction £l,800 where a man suitable for the post takes less.
    Mr. J. WARD: I wish to support the hon. Member, especially after the statement of the Under-Secretary that if the proposal is carried it will not give the opportunity to the Home Secretary to appoint some one of sufficiently high qualifications at a less salary than £l,800 if he is prepared to take it. The experience we have had of doctors during the last year and the statement having been made by the Some Secretary as to £l,800 per year, what sort of chance is there when the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all his ingenuity failed to cut them in the price, for the Home Secretary to get a man at a less figure than that he has mentioned to the House. Therefore I shall support the Amendment.
    Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "of one thousand five," and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding eighteen."
    This subject was discussed in Committee, but it was never satisfactorily explained why a limit should not be placed in the Bill. If the salaries of the Commissioners are to be fixed in the Bill, it is only right
    440
    that the salary of the chairman should also be fixed. As the Bill stands the Home Secretary, or his successor, can pay an unlimited salary to the chairman. The Bill is going to cost a great deal of money, and we ought to be careful that we do not overpay the officials. The Home Secretary has said that he does not require a larger maximum than £1,800.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I shall have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The Home Secretary has given no reason why a maximum should be fixed in the case of the subordinate officials and not in the case of the chairman. It is alarming to some of us to find this continual increase in the number of well-paid officials. We shall soon be a nation of officials paid by someone. I do not know whom. The Home Secretary says he will not pay more, than £1,800. That statement binds the right hon. Gentleman, but it in no way binds his successors. Therefore, the words should be in the Bill.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'a salary of not exceeding eighteen hundred pounds a year' be there inserted."
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This is the intention of the Home Secretary; therefore I am quite content to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. POINTER: I should like to understand why any departure from the custom that is at present observed should be made. I have been informed—and I would like to be corrected if wrong—that the present chairman not only has no extra salary, but is an unpaid man. If that is so one would like to know why the present position cannot be continued, and why it is necessary to introduce another man of a higher status above his colleagues, and pay him an extra £300 per year? I should have thought that the same salary as his colleagues, coupled with the fact of the public service rendered, would have been quite sufficient recompense for him with the £1,500 a year.
    Amendment put, and agreed to.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (8) and to insert instead thereof the words, "The Commissioners shall hold office for such term as

    441
    the Secretary of State may determine, provided that they retire at the age of seventy years."
    I do not wish us to have the Clause tonight, and I do not propose to move either of the Amendments down in my name, I only propose to move this last one here. The idea is that the Commissioners shall hold office on the same lines as ordinary members of the Civil Service, and not in the way that the judges of the High Court hold their office.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is in the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case, I do not move my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 24.—(General Powers and Duties of Commissioners.)
    (1) Subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State the Board shall—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (2) Without prejudice to their powers and duties under any regulations which the Secretary of State may make for further
    442
    or more frequent inspection and visitation, it shall be the duty of the Board, through one or more Commissioners to inspect every certified institution, certified house, and approved home at least once in each year, and either through themselves or their inspectors to inspect every certified institution, certified house and approved home one additional time in each year and every defective under guardianship, at least twice in every year, and any Commissioner shall have power to discharge at any time any person detained in a certified institution or certified house or under guardianship under this Act:
    Provided that a Commissioner shall not exercise such power of discharge without the consent of the Secretary of State in the case of a person sent to such an institution by order of the Secretary of State from a prison, criminal lunatic asylum, place of detention, reformatory or industrial school, or inebriate reformatory, so long as the term for which he was committed to the prison, criminal lunatic asylum, place of transferred remains unexpired.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) paragraph (d) to leave out the words "(with a view to their certification) elsewhere."
    I want specially to call attention to paragraph (d). The Board and their inspectors do not only visit the institutions or people who have been certified as defectives, but they hold a fishing inquiry and go round to see whether people should be segregated or not. That at present is not the duty of the Lunacy Commissioners, and I think it is an undesirable thing that it should be the duty of the new Board of Control. We do not want to have more interference with the homes of the people than we have now. It appears to me to be a very undesirable power to give to this Board, and I have put this Amendment down to specifically call attention to it. I will move my Amendment, and not the omission of the whole Clause as I intended. The whole Clause deals with a great many points that it is undesirable that the Board of Control should look after. I trust the Home Secretary will be able to meet me. I think everyone that thinks of it will agree with me that such a fishing inquiry by the Board or its inspectors will not tend to the popularity of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand my hon. Friend is moving the Amendment to leave out the words "(with a view to their certification) elsewhere." The reason for these words is very simple. If my hon. Friend will look at Sub-section (4) of Clause o, which we have already passed, he will see it provides that
    "Where the Board are satisfied that a petition under this Section ought to be presented concerning any person, and that the local authority have refused or neglected to cause a petition to be presented, they may direct an inspector or other officer to present a petition, and this Section shall apply accordingly."
    It is in order to carry out the duty imposed by that Sub-section that this power is required.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: If that is so, and, of course, we passed Clause 5 under the Closure last night, the Home Secretary should make it quite clear then the difficulty would be met. Otherwise you leave it in the power of the Board to make fishing inquiries, and although. I have every confidence in the present Home Secretary, I have no confidence that the Board will not consider it their province and duty to hold those fishing inquiries.
    Mr. McKENNA: They will only have the powers conferred by the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (e).
    The work which the Commissioners do now in the inspection of lunatic asylums is exceedingly important work and is well done. It is very necessary that the new asylums including mental defectives, who should be educated and dealt with very carefully, should be well inspected. They are to be congregated with people removed from lunatic asylums at different periods, and, in some cases, with people of criminal propensities. It is therefore very important that the inspection of these institutions should be of as high a standard as that of lunatic asylums at the present time Here you have this peculiar position. In the case of lunatic asylums now you have inspectors who have nothing to do with those lunatic asylums or with the management; they come from outside and can criticise them freely. Under this Clause their duty is to provide and maintain an asylum, and the only person who is to inspect is the very person who has to provide and maintain the asylum. That is a
    444
    thoroughly bad system, and the result of it is that the person responsible for running the establishment is the only person to come down and inspect them.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to second this Amendment.
    It has been my sad lot when I was chairman of a hospital to travel all over Europe looking at hospitals for nervous diseases, and it has become more and more clear to myself and those who worked with me that these institutions for defectives of a criminal, dangerous and violent propensities should not be mixed up with those in other institutions. I have seen men in Austria and Munich who have committed murder the night before put into these baths, in which they remain for eight or nine months at a time. This proposal in this Clause is going right against the scientific tendency of the present age.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the purport of this paragraph. He suggests that separate institutions for criminals of dangerous propensities should be maintained by the State and that is what we propose. The defective institutions will be maintained by the local authorities. The proposer of this Amendment does not quarrel with the proposal that the State should provide and maintain separate institutions, but he thinks some other authority should be set up by the State for the sole purpose of providing these institutions. I think in this case the hon. and learned Member has made a mistake. It is quite time theoretically that it is undesirable to have the same body inspecting on the one hand itself and maintaining a similar institution on the other, but that is not a similar institution. It is quite a different kind of institution from the ordinary institution provided and maintained by the local authorities, and all the defectives who are criminal and dangerous will be transferred from the local authorities' institutions to the State institution. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would press us to set up another authority merely to provide for this class of defectives.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like to give the House an illustration which entirely confirms the views of the proposer of the Amendment. Some years ago during the time of the late Conservative Administration, I received a letter from a man at Broadmoor Asylum who said that

    445
    he had been confined there for some twenty-four years for a very petty offence. He wrote to me over a series of years, and I eventually went to see him. I became convinced that he was absolutely sane, and I asked various Home Secretaries, one after the other, to allow me to send a specialist to see the man whom I was told was a violent person. The man, as a matter of fact, was perfectly sane, but the doctor at the asylum said that he was not, and that he was not going to recommend the Home Secretary to allow him to be discharged. The Home Office acted in their usual stupid manner, and I was not allowed to send an independent doctor to see him. Eventually, I was told how to get the man out. I was told to get him transferred to the county asylum at Nottingham on the ground that his relatives were poor. I did so and the man was under the inspection of the medical officer of the county asylum at Nottingham for a year. Ultimately he was let out and he now has a barber's shop in my Constituency and shaves a largenumber of people. I have not been shaved by him myself, but I am certain that I should get a very excellent shave if I were. This I mention to show that it is the doctor who says whether a man is to be let out or not and that the Commissioners are of no use at all. This man used to shave the prison officials, and yet he was confined there for twenty-four years. Therefore, if the hon. Member goes to a Division, I shall vote with him.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I understood that all the mentally defective persons who are at present in prison will be transferred to these State institutions. It is not merely persons of violent and dangerous propensities but all those who are at present in prison who will be transferred to other institutions, so that you will not get a specialist's institution, but a distinct institution for dealing with the larger part of the 30,000 mentally defectives with whom you are going to begin. The question, however, arises whether the State would provide a sufficient number of separate institutions. You do not want to have in one institution the sixteen different classes male and female, of four different types, and simply to talk of them all a scriminal. Such lunatics is quite beside the mark. This is going to be a very wide Clause indeed, and I do not think we ought lightly to hand over the management of the greater number of these mentally defective persons in the way proposed.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether these are really to be State hospitals set up by the Home Secretary or by the Board. A State hospital must be set up on the authority of the Home Secretary, and I should like to know if he does not mean that they are to be State hospitals altogether, and whether he has satisfied himself, in the event of State hospitals being set up by the Board, the Board being subordinate to himself, that there are sufficient extra doctors to undertake the staffing of these hospitals. That is a very serious question.
    Mr. McKENNA: The number of institutions to be set up under paragraph (e) will be extremely small. We do not propose to transfer all the defectives, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme seems to think, to these institutions, which will be specially for lunatics who are criminal or dangerous—I do not mean criminal in the way of petty thefts or offences of that sort, but really dangerous and violent criminals. We anticipate setting up not more than one or two of those institutions. The Board of Control in future will be under the Home Secretary in setting up institutions of this kind.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I have been looking again at the Bill. I thought for the moment that the Clause was similar to the Clause in the Lunacy Act, but it is a little different, and I see that the matter is already sufficiently covered. I think, in the interests of getting on with the Bill, the cases being so few and so small, that upon the whole my hon. Friend is right. I thought, when he made his speech, that he was wrong, but looking at the powers under the Lunacy Act and the powers in this Bill, I have come to the conclusion that he is right, in spite of what the Home Secretary has said, because it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the powers which he possesses in subsequent Clauses of the Bill. I do not think he needs this in addition to the very wide powers he has already taken.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I venture to support the appeal of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. Let us assume it is right to set up these institutions. I agree there ought to be institutions of that description. But it is the duty of the Home Secretary to provide and maintain them, and if so, then this Bill is wrong, because it lays the duty on the Board to arrange for payment. Let the Home Secretary undertake the duty, employing as his agents the Board or any

    447
    other body or persons he may choose. But to say that the Board shall provide them is to place an improper function on that body. What is the Board to do? It is to supervise, protect, control; it is to exercise purely administrative managerial functions. But how is it to provide and maintain the institutions? Where is it to get the necessary money from? There is no provision in the Bill of funds for providing and maintaining such institutions. I beg the Home Secretary to consider whether it is proper the Board should deal with such questions as providing these institutions, and whether this is the proper place in the Bill to raise the point. Would it not be better to have a separate Clause or proviso, making that part of the duty of the Home Secretary to provide and maintain such institutions.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Will the effect of omitting this Clause be to put mentally defective persons now in State institutions in ordinary institutions maintained by local authorities? If so, I shall not support the Amendment, because it would involve putting half the cost of the maintenance of these people on the local authority, whereas, as the Clause now stands, the whole cost has to be paid by the State and not by the local authority. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at the present time there are such institutions in existence to which criminal lunatics can be sent? What, too, is the difference between a criminal lunatic and a defective who has criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities? I believe there is very little difference indeed.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I would urge the Home Secretary not to insist on this Clause. He says he really does not mean it for criminal defectives, for he has already full power to deal with that class. Criminal lunatics are already sent to
    Broadmoor. The question is whether the cost of the poor people with whom this Clause deals shall fall on the rates or taxes. This is another blot on the Bill; it is a very fair illustration of the danger of such a Sub-section as this. If these people are sent to an institution for the mentally defective under this Bill the Government contribution towards their maintenance will be 7s., but if they go to an ordinary lunatic asylum then the contribution will only be 4s. Will not the effect be to fill these institutions with people who would otherwise be in ordinary lunatic asylums? You will, in fact, have a type of institution set up which is unnecessary, because all these cases can be dealt with either at Broadmoor or in existing lunatic asylums. By introducing this you are setting a very bad precedent; you are making people responsible to provide and maintain institutions; you are, in fact, making them inspectors of these institutions at the same time. This is not a mere theoretical point; you are making a very bad precedent. Your Commissioners at the present time are doing their work thoroughly well; they understand the duty of inspection, but they have had no experience of providing and maintaining institutions such as these. That work is usually undertaken by a very different type of person to the class who act as inspectors, and I venture to submit to the Home Secretary the great desirability of omitting this Clause, because it is introducing a thoroughly bad precedent, of putting on the Commissioners work which they ought not to be called upon to do. It is not for them to provide and maintain these institutions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us, otherwise, we shall have to press the matter to a Division.
    Question put, "That paragraph (e) stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 65.

    Division No. 226.]

    AYES.

    [12.25 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Adamson, William

    Bentham, G. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Bird, A.

    Clough, William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Boland, John Pius

    Clynes, John R.

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Brace, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Brady, P. J.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Barnes, George N.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cullinan, J.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Barton, William

    Carr-Gomm. H. W.

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cave, George

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Delany, William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Doris, W.

    Leach, Charles

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Reddy, Michael

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, John (Waterford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lundon, T.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N).

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robinson, Sidney

    Field, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, James

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

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

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Middlebrook, William

    Simon, Rt Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hackett, J.

    Molloy, M.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mooney, John J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Morrell, Philip

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Munro, R.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Hayward, Evan

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Webb, H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Wiles, Thomas

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

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

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Keating, Matthew

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Kelly, Edward

    Parry, Thomas H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    King, J.

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

    NOES.

    Baird, J. L.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greene, W. R.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gretton, John

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

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Hogge, James Myles

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Starkey, John R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sutton, John E.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Butcher, John George

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Needham, Christopher

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Younger, Sir George

    Falle, B. G.

    O'Grady, James

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Malcolm.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Question, "That the word 'some' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 26. (Local Authorities.)
    The local authority for the purposes of this Act shall, as respects a county, be the
    450
    council of the county, and, as respects a county borough, be the council of the borough.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the word "and" ["of the county, and"].
    This is an Amendment which will be explained if one looks at the consequential Amendments which stand in my name—to add at the end "and as respects the City of London be the Common Council," and then in Clause 32 to insert: "Provided that nothing in this Act shall exempt the City of London from contributing towards the expenses incurred by the London County Council under this Act, but the London County Council shall in each year repay to the common council for each mental defective maintained by that council a sum equal to the net average cost to the London County Council in that year of the maintenance of each mental defective for whose maintenance the London County Council are responsible, which cost shall be ascertained in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State." The meaning of it is simply this, that the City has an asylum already, which I think the Home Secretary will agree with me is an extremely good one, and is managed extremely well. They do not want to loose control of that asylum, and in order to keep the control in their own hands they are prepared, not only to pay their own share of the cost of this establishment, but to contribute their share of the rates raised by the London County Council.
    It may be argued that the City of London has only a small number of residents, and that, therefore, there cannot be a very large number of persons in this asylum under this Bill, but the City has a large floating population, and they are prepared to take into their asylum any persons who are desirous of coming in, and if the cost should be greater than that contributed to them by the London County Council they will be prepared to pay it out of their own pockets. Really, the idea is that, having a building in their own hands at present, they shall have an opportunity of setting up an institution which shall be a model institution which shall cost no one any money except themselves, and which will enable them to maintain the authority they already have. I may say that my noble and gallant Friend (Captain Jessel), who has been a member of the London County Council, will second this, and I have had an opportunity of consulting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who says that he has no objection whatever to the Amendment. I understand that the hon.
    452
    Member opposite, who represents one of the divisions of St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), objects to the Amendment on the ground that he does not like any power to be taken away from the County Council, but this is a small Amendment which will take practically nothing from the County Council, and will enable a building already in use to be made use of under the Bill. I trust the Home Secretary will accept it.
    Captain JESSEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I moved this very same Amendment in the Committee upstairs, and I hope it will have a better reception now than it had on that occasion. Before I moved the Amendment I was careful to see that the City was going to pay its fair share towards the rest of London, and this Amendment amply safeguards the rest of London from the City not bearing its clue burden. The argument, of course, may be used that this is a Bill dealing mainly with children, and I may be asked what is the precedent of this very Clause. The answer is that in the Children Act of 1908 this very Clause is put in which safeguards the rights of the City. My hon. Friend the Member for the City is wrong in attributing to me the proud position of having ever sat on the County Council. I have never sat on that body and do not know what their attitude would be, but I should not like to think that any of us in this House would support a proposition which would put more expense on the ratepayers of London outside the City. I have satisfied myself that this Clause will help the ratepayers of London. It is a small matter, but one to which the City attaches considerable importance, and I hope, therefore, the House will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. DICKINSON: As my hon. Friend has just said, this proposal was made in the Committee, and was not accepted by the Committee. This proposal is to put the City in an exceptional position with regard to mental defectives as regarded London and the rest of the country, and I have been asked, since I opposed it in Committee, by the London County Council itself to oppose it on this occasion. The Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded themselves recommended that the control of defectives should be in the hands of the County Authority, and they point out in Paragraph 239:
    "There is in London a division of authority and a want of administrative accord which is fatal to any

    453
    successful treatment of the problem and which is the strongest argument for some such settled uniformity of procedure and unification of authorities as several of our witnesses have very strongly advocated."
    This Bill deals with defectives, and very largely indeed with defective children, and, as the House is aware, the London County Council is the authority for dealing with the education of children. The Council has special schools, it has every kind of school, including truant schools. From the point of view of administration it would be a great mistake to divorce any portion of the work from the Education Authority. The case of the imbeciles and idiots at present is in the hands of the Metropolitan Asylums Board; it is a county board which exercises jurisdiction over the whole Administrative County, including the City. It will be a mistake to deal with the City in any way exceptionally. The only reason why the City thinks it ought to have separate treatment is that it is the Lunacy Authority under the Lunacy Acts. It is, however, by no means exceptional in this respect.
    There are twenty-nine or thirty different boroughs in this country that are lunacy authorities and none the less are situated within counties which themselves administer lunacy. Under this Bill all these boroughs are going to be left as forming part of their counties, and the mere fact that they are lunacy authorities is not taken into consideration in regard to mental defectives. And when one looks into the administration of the Lunacy Act by the City Corporation—I will not say anything whatever against the excellence of that administration—no one can say that they are carrying on a practice necessary for the City of London. The expenses of the City of London in this matter were £23,000, of which £20,000 was taken from private patients who paid for accommodation in the asylum in that way, and, as a matter of fact, only £3,000 fell on the City ratepayers for the purposes of the administration of lunacy. I quite agree that my hon. Friend has made a proposition which would, to a certain extent, do away with the financial injustice which would accrue to the county by reason of the change. If you made the change you would be actually benefiting the city financially at the expense of the county, but that would not take place when further Amendment is carried out. This is not really a financial question at all, it is one of administration. It is much better that mentally defective people should be catered for by the authority which has the jurisdiction over
    454
    the whole of the schools and over the whole of the county.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Committees for the Care of Defectives.)
    (1) Every local authority shall constitute a committee for the purposes of this Act, to be called the committee for the care of the mentally defective, consisting of such members of the council appointed by the council as the council may determine, and of such persons, not being members of the council, but being poor law guardians or other persons having special knowledge and experience with respect to the care, control, and treatment of defectives, appointed by the council as the council may determine, and of the persons so appointed some shall be women, and of the whole committee the majority shall be members of the council.
    Provided that where a local authority has appointed one or more visiting committees or asylums committees under the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, then if the council so determine—

    (a) such committee or committees shall act also as the committee for the care of the mentally defective, and in such cases there will be added to each committee at least two women; or

    (b) the members of such committee or committees shall be the members of the council appointed by the council to be members of the committee for the care of the mentally defective.

    (2) All matters relating to the exercise by the local authority of their powers under this Act (except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money) shall stand referred to the committee for the care of the mentally defective, and the local authority before exercising any such powers shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to the matter in question. The local authority may also delegate to the committee, with or without any restrictions as they think fit, any of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money.
    (3) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the committee for the

    455
    care of the mentally defective who by reason of holding an office or place of profit, or having any share or interest in a contract or employment, is disqualified for being a member of the council appointing the committee, but no such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college aided, provided, or maintained by the council, or who would be disqualified to act as a Commissioner on the grounds stated in Section 22 of this Act.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "some" ["of the persons so appointed some shall be women"] and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    This Clause decides the sort of committee to be set up by each of the local authorities for looking after mentally defectives, and in describing these committees it is said that a certain number of persons may be co-opted. I desire to secure that three at least of the co-opted members of a committee shall be women. After all this Act will deal rather more with women than with men. Unfortunately at the present time there are very few women who have been able to get seats on local authorities. It is therefore very necessary that we should insist that some of the co-opted members should be women. "Some" is the word in the Bill, and I think it is better to have two women at least. These are not paid jobs, and there is no money in them. I am not going to waste time talking about the question. I have not wasted much time up to now. Those who think that there should be two women on each committee will vote with me.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I think it is better that we should leave it to the local authority and that we should not prescribe any number to them or compel them to appoint three women. It may be that more than three would be competent to serve upon the committee. On the other hand, there may be districts where there are no competent women. The great thing is to get competent people to serve, whether they be men or women. It is far better that they should be all men when there are no competent women. We have said "some" in the Clause, and I hope the hon. Member will think that sufficient indication.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: There is much more indication in the case of Insurance Committees. I think that three is the very minimum we should have.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out paragraph (a).
    I wish to explain in a single sentence that this is merely a drafting Amendment. The need for the omission of the paragraph arises in this way. In Committee upstairs when Sub-clause (b) was inserted it was stated that it would be necessary when we came to consider the Bill on Report to leave out paragraph (a) as the two are very similar, if not precisely identical.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that paragraph (b) is exactly the same as paragraph (a). If the Home Secretary will look at the two paragraphs he will see that under paragraph (a) the Asylums Committee of the Council can act also as the committee under this Bill, and under paragraph (b) he will see that the members of such committee "shall be the members of the council appointed by the council to be members of the committee for the care of the mentally defective." In the first part of Clause 27 it is laid down that the committee for the care of defectives shall consist both of members of the council and of certain co-opted members who are to have experience with respect to the care, control, and treatment of defectives. It is quite possible that the council may wish that its own asylums committee should be the committee under this Bill, and by omitting paragraph (a) we are taking away from the council the possibility of having its asylums committee as the committee. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is aware that the asylums committee is a statutory committee—a committee which has spending powers quite independent of the council. It has not, so far as maintenance expenditure is concerned, to get the consent of the council at all, and the asylums committee may be very anxious not to have on the committee any co-opted members who are not responsible to the ratepayers. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will not take away the alternative contained in paragraph (a). I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very strong feeling among persons acquainted with the question of asylums and defectives that it is desirable to have

    457
    the services of co-opted members, and especially co-opted members who are known to be experts.
    Mr. A. ALLEN: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith) that these two paragraphs do not mean the same thing. There is another point beyond that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman to which I wish to draw the Home Secretary's attention. In paragraph (a) provision is made for the addition to the committee for the care of the mentally defective of at least two women, and I may remind the House that in Committee upstairs a strong opinion was expressed that there should be women on the committee. I cannot see in paragraph (b) any provision at all that women should serve on the committee, and, therefore, if we omitted paragraph (a) it would make a serious difference in that it would do away with women on the committee.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think we ought to have a reply from the Home Secretary on the question of the difference between the paragraphs, at least as regards the two women.
    Mr. McKENNA: It must be understood that when this Clause was reached in Committee it was not in its present form, but words were inserted in the first part of the Clause dealing with the constitution of the committee for the care of defectives by which it has been provided that "of the persons so appointed, some shall be women, and of the whole committee the majority shall be members of the council." Then later, in the proviso, certain Amendments were made with the result that you have paragraphs (a) and (b) doing the same thing twice over. Under the circumstances it seems the obvious thing to do to omit one or other of the paragraphs.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I would venture, with all respect, to say that is not the opinion which is held by the chairman of the Asylums Committee of the London County Council. That committee is really very anxious to retain paragraph (a) and I can see no harm in keeping it in the Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: The only objection I have to the paragraph remaining in the Bill is of a drafting character. I do not really mind it being in, and as there is some desire to keep it in I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg, in Sub-section (2), to move to leave out the words "The local authority may also delegate to the committee, with or without any restrictions as they think fit, any of their powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money."
    I move to strike out these words because I object very strongly to the local authorities delegating their powers to the committee for the care of the mentally defective. Wherever a county council delegates its power to a committee the council ceases to have any control, practically speaking, over the work of that committee. Take, for example, the education committee. The county council have the very smallest powers over the education committee of the council, and the committee do all the work. The committee for the care of the mentally defective will be nothing like so important as the education committee, and it is certainly not more important than the small holdings and allotments committee, or the public health committee. I do not see why the council should surrender its powers to the committee for the care of the mentally defective any more than it does on other questions to the two committees last named. It seems undemocratic to delegate powers to a committee largely co-opted and thus surrender practically all control over the question of the treatment of the mentally deficient. I do not know whether the county councils asked for the power to delegate their authority in this way, but it is, I submit, very undesirable that any further powers should be delegated than is the case at the present time.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "or who would be disqualified to act as a Commissioner on the grounds stated in Section twenty-two of this Act."
    1.0 A.M.
    The reason for moving the omission of these words is that in committee the preceding three lines were introduced on an Amendment at a place which made the last two lines of the Clause not read. An Amendment was introduced a few lines higher up, beginning with the word "but" ["the committee, but"] that "no such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college aided, provided, or maintained by the council." Then it goes on, "or who would be disqualified to act as a Commissioner." These words originally followed

    459
    after the word "committee" ["appointing the Committee"]. They are quite out of place and meaningless, where they stand now. In any case, I propose to omit them altogether, as they are unnecessary, by reference to Clause (23) which deals with everybody who is disqualified, and a Commissioner is already disqualified under the original system.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Joint Action.)
    (1) Where on such application as is hereinafter mentioned it appears to the Secretary of State that two or more local authorities should join for the purpose of the exercise and performance of any of their powers and duties under this Act, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, shall have power by Order to make such provisions as appear to him necessary or expedient, by the constitution of a joint committee or joint board or otherwise, for the joint exercise and performance of all or any of the powers under this Act of such local authorities; and any such Order may provide how. and in what proportions, and out of what funds or rates, the expenses incurred in the joint exercise and performance of such powers are to be defrayed, and may contain such incidental, consequential, and supplemental provisions (including provisions adapting any of the provisions of this Act to the ease of any committee or board so constituted) as may be necessary for the purposes of the Order.
    (2) An Order under this Section for the joint exercise and performance of all or any of the powers under this Act of two or more local authorities may be made on the application of one or more of such authorities, but unless all such authorities agree to the making of such Order it shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament.
    (3) Any such Order shall remain in operation for the period (if any) named therein, or if no period is so named until it is determined by mutual agreement between the local authorities concerned with the consent of the Secretary of State: Provided that any such Order may be revoked or varied by an Order made on a like application and subject to the like provisions as the original Order.
    (4) Sections 297 and 298 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (which relate to the
    460
    making of Provisional Orders by the Local Government Board), shall, with the necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this Act as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable thereto.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    This Clause deals with joint action between county councils and borough councils, and under Sub-section (2) power is taken to force co-operation between the borough council and the county council, or between two public bodies. The Government take power to compel two local authorities, generally the county council and some county borough in the county, to form one joint committee, and that step would be taken on the application of one of those authorities alone, provided that in that case the joint action is only provisional until approved by Parliament. We all know that the approval of these things by Parliament is very much a matter of form, and would be very difficult to prevent, if any borough did not wish to come into the county council or the joint committee. They had very great difficulty in Staffordshire over the question of the committee dealing with consumption under the National Insurance Act. There, Stoke-on-Trent did not want to come in with the rest of the county, and with Wolverhampton and the other county boroughs, and she managed to keep outside and had her own committee to deal with tuberculosis. In the interests of local independence, that power to stand outside, and have their own committee, ought to be preserved. I rather fear that under Sub-section (2) we shall have a state of affairs under which the Government will be able to compel the different county boroughs to come in with the county council, or two county councils to join together, where they think that the counties are not large enough, and you will have the interference by the central authority with the free exercise of their functions by the various county and borough councils. I should be very glad to hear from the Home Secretary whether my reading of this Sub-section is correct, and whether it does rest with Parliament, merely by passing a formal confirmation of an Order, to compel two unwilling parties to come together in this way. If so, I think it is undesirable that it should make this interference.
    Amendment not seconded.

    CLAUSE 29.—(General Powers and Duties of Local Authorities.)
    The local authority are hereby empowered, and it shall be their duty, subject to the provisions of this Act and to regulations made by the Secretary of State—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Provided that—

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

    462

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

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

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

    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
    This Clause deals with the powers and duties of the local authorities and paragraph (a) deals with a particular power which I object to very much. It is generally accepted, but to me it seems to require some discussion. Under it, a black list could be drawn up by these local authorities of all persons mentally defective within their areas, "to ascertain what persons within their area are defectives"—
    Mr. McKENNA: Read on!
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: "subject to be dealt with under this Act otherwise than at the instance of their parents or guardians." It is undesirable that our local authorities should be in a position to draw up lists, and I suppose to inspect houses to see whether any of the family are mentally defective. It strikes me that that is about the limit in the course of interference with individual liberty of the working classes in their homes. If you are going to allow parents to be visited at any time by inspectors of this authority, in order to see whether any of their children are mentally defective, I think Members of Parliament are likely to hear of it when next they go to their constituencies. The local authority, of course, normally get information as to the mentally defective in their area in two ways. In the first place, they will get information from the Poor Law guardians, of these people in the Poor Law institutions and the workhouses. Then, secondly, they will get information from the local education authority, as to the children who are in: the schools between the age of seven and sixteen. All this class, who are older than sixteen or under seven, and the class also—if they are intended to be dealt with—who do not send their children to the national or elementary schools at all, but are two well-off to do so, will have to be looked through and hunted for by the officials of the authority in their efforts to discover which of them are mentally defective, if they carry out the duties provided under this paragraph. It seems to me that the paragraph is entirely unnecessary, and that they can carry on their duties quite well without it being there at all. Information will be supplied to them, in the case of school children, between seven and sixteen, surely they can dispense with discovering all those mental defectives above the age of sixteen and below the age of seven. Let the in-
    464
    formation come from the local education authority, and then you will not have all this inspection and interference. That is quite sufficient for the purpose of this Bill.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "to provide suitable provision for such persons, or, if such supervision affords insufficient protection to."
    I wish to move that the first two lines of this paragraph be omitted. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate what is meant by "supervision" or what steps the local authority must take to comply with this special paragraph. The duty of exercising such supervision might be of very great dimensions, and it ought to be clearly stated in the Bill what is meant by "supervision." We know that local authorities under the Bill have got to provide institutions and also that they can place defectives under guardianship. But the word "supervision" is not mentioned in any other Clause but this. Local authorities are very strogly of opinion that it ought to be stated here in the Bill, and that they ought not to be left to the mercy of regulations made by the Home Office.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment, in order to get a reply.
    Mr. McKENNA: These are words intended to carry out one of the very objects which the hon. Member who opposes this Bill has on every other occasion declared himself most anxious to see the Bill define. This is part of the voluntary work of supervision of defectives carried out by well-known care committees who, if they are successful in looking out for defectives voluntarily, will not throw on local authorities any of the other duties under this Bill. I regret that this Amendment is proposed by the hon. Member opposite and seconded by my hon. Friend, who has spoken in favour of this proposal in the Bill again and again.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I said I seconded the Amendment in order to get a reply.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I am not objecting to provision being made by local care committees. This is not a duty imposed on voluntary committees, but a duty imposed on local authorities, and we want to know what is meant by supervision by local

    465
    authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has not met my point at all.
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHhad an Amendment on the Paper to leave out paragraph (i), and to insert instead thereof:—
    (i) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as—

    (a) imposing any obligation on a local authority to perform any duties arising by reason of an order under Section eight or Section nine of this Act unless the whole of the net amount (as approved by the Board) of the cost on income account of performing such duties is contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament; or

    (b) imposing any obligation on a local authority to perform any other duties or enabling such authority to exercise any powers under this Act where the contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament under this Act towards the cost on income account of performing such duties or exercising such powers is less than one-half of the net amount (as approved by the Board) of such cost.

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): This Amendment does not appear to be in order. It seems to mate a public charge.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move in paragraph (ii), after the word "Act" ["if the Idiots Act"], to insert the figures "1886."
    Mr. McKENNA: This is merely a drafting Amendment, which I accept.
    Amendment put, and agreed to.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to add the following new paragraph:—
    "(v) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation upon a local authority to provide accommodation or treatment for defectives of criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities."
    It seems to me that among these provisos which safeguard the local authorities there is none to safeguard them against the danger of having handed over to them by the Secretary of State from the prisons some of those defectives who are of
    466
    criminal, dangerous, or violent propensities. I do not suppose the local authorities will have any of those people handed over to them, but, at the same time, it is just as well the local authorities should have some safeguard against those risks. I hope we shall have some explanation, but of course if I cannot get a Seconder, there will be none.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment. I was going to raise very nearly the same point upon the Amendment which stands in my name, but which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ruled out of order. That Amendment really raised the whole of the financial question in this Bill, and I was told by the right hon. Gentleman that we should discuss the financial question on that particular Amendment. I know I am not allowed to discuss your ruling, but I should like to point out that it would not increase the expenditure, as the expenditure is limited to £150,000 under the Bill. With reference to the Amendment now before the House, under Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill, defectives may be sent to institutions or placed under guardianship by order of the court or by the Home Secretary. Now all these cases which come under Clauses 8 and 9 are criminal or quasi-criminal cases, and it is quite clear that they ought to be paid for by the State and not by the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman, in Committee, said that it was quite clear that the State should pay half the cost of this, and that the local authority should pay the other half, because the State, at present, was only responsible for the period when these people were in prison, and that this period was a much shorter period than the defectives would be under the local authority. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his argument does not really meet the case, because the State already in this Bill is prepared to pay half the cost of all defectives, whether criminal or not, and local authorities are very anxious to see a proviso of this sort inserted so that the whole cost of criminal defectives should be borne by the State and not by the local authorities. In that case a much larger part of the £150,000 which is to be paid to local authorities would be available for the treatment of ordinary defectives, and everyone admits that the grant of £150,000 is by no means sufficient to deal with all defectives who ought to be dealt with under this Bill. Therefore I have much pleasure in seconding this Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will, I think, be satisfied if he turns to the Amendment I have put on the Paper to Clause 40, Paragraph (f), which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the transfer of patients from one certified institution to another, and from a State institution to a certified institution, and, in special cases, from a certified institution to a State institution. My Amendment is to leave out the words "special cases" and insert "cases appropriate to State institutions." This subject was discussed upstairs, and I undertook to introduce words to make it clear that in the cases appropriate to State institutions the transfer should be effected from the local authority institutions to the State institutions. The words which my hon. Friend has put down are precisely the same words which we have in the preceding Clause, in which we provided for institutions set up by the State. I have carried out the exact object by a subsequent Amendment, and I hope that with this statement my hon. Friend will be satisfied.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: There are some defectives. I suppose, in prison at the present time who will not be considered criminal
    or dangerous. What will be done with those people?
    Mr. McKENNA: They will be dealt with in ordinary instances by the local authorities. The ordinary feeble-minded person now in prison is not a person of criminal or dangerous propensities at all, and these people will be dealt with under ordinary circumstances; but there are defectives defined in Clause 24, in which it is laid down that the Board of Control shall provide and maintain institutions for defectives of criminal, dangerous or violent propensities. In Clause 40 we provide for the transfer of these very same persons from the local authority institutions to the State institutions. I do not think the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment had read the Amendment, and I need not address myself to arguments not relevant to this particular proposal.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the Home Secretary or Board of Control going to decide exactly which defectives in prison at the present time are criminal or are not criminal, and has the local authority no say in the matter?
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 180.

    Division No. 227.]

    AYES.

    [1.21 a.m.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Grant, J. A.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Greene, W. R.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gretton, John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bowerman, Charles W

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hogge, James Myles

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Goldsmith.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Malcolm, Ian

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Boland, John Pius

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Adamson, William

    Brace, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Arnold, Sydney

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cullinan, John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Buckmaster, Stanely O.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Barnes, George N.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Delany, William

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Barton, W.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Devlin, Joseph

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clough, William

    Doris, William

    Bentham, G. J.

    Clynes, John R.

    Duffy, William J.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Leach, Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lundon, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Field, William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lyttelton, Hon. John C.

    Reddy, Michael

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    McGhee, Richard

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Goldstone, Frank

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Manfield, Harry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rowlands, James

    Gulland, John William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    Hackett, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehy, David

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Middlebrook, William

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Millar, James Duncan

    Stewart, Gershom

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Molloy, Michael

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mooney, John J.

    Sutton, John E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morrell, Philip

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro, Robert

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hughes, Spencr Leigh

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    John, Edward Thomas

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Webb, H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Dowd, John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Grady, James

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    King, Joseph

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shee, James John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Duties of Local Education Authorities.)
    (1) The duties of a local education authority shall include a duty to make arrangements, subject to the approval of the Board of Education:—

    (a) for ascertaining what children within their area are defective children within the meaning of this Act;

    (b) for ascertaining which of such children are incapable by reason of mental defect of receiving benefit or further benefit from instruction in special schools or classes;

    (c) for notifying to the local authority under this Act, the names and addresses of defective children with respect to whom it is the duty of the local education authority to give notice under the provisions hereinbefore contained.

    In case of doubt as to whether a child is or is not capable of receiving such benefit as aforesaid, or whether the retention of a child in a special school or class would be detrimental to the interests of the other
    470
    children, the matter shall be determined by the Board of Education.
    (2) The provisions of Section 1 of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, shall apply with the necessary modifications for the purposes of this Section.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "The duties of a local education authority shall include a duty to," and to insert instead thereof the words "A local education authority may."
    The object of this change is to make the Act optional on the local education authorities so far as these particular duties are concerned. These are not duties which would appeal to many of these local education authorities. First of all, they have to ascertain what children are defective within the meaning of this Act, and they have then to do the work of sifting out from the special schools those children who are no longer capable of receiving benefit from such schools. Many of our county councils have no special schools or classes at all and have

    471
    no machinery to carry out the duties thrown upon them in this Clause. It is better to make the Clause optional so that the big county councils, such as London, Leeds, and Bradford which have special schools and classes, will be able to carry out the provisions of the Act. How is the Staffordshire County Council, for instance, to ascertain what children within their area are defective? They have not got the machinery to find that out at all.
    You are putting an absolutely impossible burden upon the backs of county councils when you ask them to do a thing like this. If they have special schools and classes it will be an easy thing for them to do because they have simply to send in a list of the children who are in their special schools and classes. If they have not got special schools and classes, they will have to go round making inquiries from house to house in order to ascertain what children of school age should be added to the list. I do ask the House, before they throw upon the county councils any more work, first of all to ask themselves whether the county councils are able to do the work. I imagine that this Clause when being drafted was made compulsory upon all county councils in the belief that the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill would pass into law, but the chances of that Bill passing are becoming very nebulous indeed. In that Bill it is made compulsory upon all county councils to provide special schools and classes. I am informed that a compromise has been come to between the Board of Education and the County Councils Association, by which county councils are exempted from the necessity of finding these compulsory special schools and classes, and of providing the machinery which is necessary if they are going to carry out their duties under Section 30. The burden that the Bill casts upon county councils is an impossible one, and I hope we may have it made an optional instead of a compulsory duty for county councils.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Member has made himself quite clear. If this Amendment were carried it would practically wreck the Bill. I do not say that it is the intention of the hon. Member. The Amendment would give to local education authorities the option as to whether they would do the work or not.
    472
    It was moved in the Committee and was negatived after some discussion. It was because the provision of special schools under the Act of 1899 was optional that a great deal of the difficulty has arisen with regard to them. The optional principle has failed in that case, for, as we know, in three-quarters of the country there are no special schools at all, and now the hon. Member wants to apply the same principle of failure to this Bill.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH Mr. GOLDSMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned"; but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move that paragraph (a) be omitted.
    This paragraph provides that a local education authority shall make arrangements for ascertaining what children within their area are defective children within the meaning of the Act. I have already said that county councils have no machinery for doing this work. I now go to the other side and say that it is not only impossible for county councils to do the work, it is extremely undesirable for them to do it unless they have special schools or classes. Unless there is a special school or class, how is a county council to proceed? They have to decide what children within their area are defective children, and they have no special schools. The only way open to them, therefore, is to send the school attendance officer round to every family and find out the name and defectiveness of the children of every family. Could there be anything more abominable than that the school attendance officer should go into the house of the ordinary working man and inquire as to whether his children are defective and in what way they are defective? I hear a Labour Member telling me to "dry up," but what the hon. Member ought to know is that there are a considerable number of working men who do not like inspectors prying into their family affairs and seeing if their children are normal or defective. Working men are resentful already about the amount of inspection which goes on continually. You

    473
    will have them prying into your family affairs, and as a result you will have a good deal more restiveness than there is even at the present time. I therefore beg to move.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "area" ["for ascertaining what children within their area"], to insert the words "and attending their schools."
    The local education authority, under this Clause have to make arrangements for ascertaining what children within their area are defective, and I have moved my Amendment because it seems to me that the inquiry would more easily be carried out if it were made in respect of children who were actually attending the schools. If my proposal is agreed to, the inspectors would not have to find out whether children who are less than seven years of age are defective, and would not have to go round to the class who do not send their children to these schools to find out whether any of their children are defective. If I can find a seconder I shall vote against a general roving inquiry being made, and in favour of confining the inquiry to the children already in the schools.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I shall not take up the time of the House by replying at any length to this Amendment. The proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is really absolutely impossible, because it is the very children who do not attend school who may be most defective, and whom it is specially desired to reach.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c).
    This paragraph states that the local education authority shall notify to the local authority the names and addresses of defective children "with respect to whom it is the duty of the local education authority to give notice under the provisions hereinbefore contained." I think that as the House has already approved of paragraphs (a) and (b) it would be hardly possible for me to persuade them not to supply the list of defectives to the local authority. I would point out, however, that if the local authority is to take the list of
    474
    defective children from the local education authority, there will have been no question whatever of any sort of medical examination beforehand by any doctor. In some cases, you may have the doctor of the local education authority making an inquiry but I venture to say that in the vast majority of cases simply the teachers word will be taken, and the child will be notified to the authority under the Bill on that purely information. Of course that does not mean that the child has to go to a certified institution, but it does mean that the child's name is entered on the list, and that a petition may be presented against it. It is undesirable that an opportunity should be afforded of putting the child's name on such a list without any medical examination whatever, and without an opportunity being afforded to the parent to bring any complaint against the authority which thus puts the name of his child on the black list.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move in paragraph (c) after the word "notifying" ["for notifying to the local authority"] to insert the words" to the parent or guardian and,"
    I think it is most desirable that when the name of any child is entered on the list notification of the fact should be made not only to the local authority, but also to the parent or guardian of the child. It is not fair that a child's name should appear on the list without the parents being told of it. I had hoped that a simple Amendment like this would have been accepted by the Home Secretary, but as there does not seem to be any disposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to meet me on the point, I will not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 31.—(Power of Secretary of State to Act in Default.)
    31.—(1) If the Board report to the Secretary of State that a local authority have made default in the performance of any of their duties under this Act, the Secretary of State may, after holding a local inquiry in any case where he deems it desirable to do so, and on being satisfied that such default has taken place, by order require the local authority to do such acts and things for remedying the default as he may direct, and any such order may be enforced by mandamus.
    (2) Any expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under any such order or in respect of any such default, or in respect of any such inquiry, shall if the Secretary of State so directs, be expenses of the local authority, and the treasurer or other proper officer of the local authority shall pay the amount of such expenses to the Secretary of State within two months after demand, and in default of payment the amount thereof shall be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.
    (3) An order of the Secretary of State shall be conclusive in respect of any default, amount of expenses, and any other matter therein stated or appearing; but nothing in this provision shall prejudice or affect the right or power of the Secretary of State or any other authority to take any other proceedings for requiring a local authority to perform their duties under this Act.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I do not for one moment expect that I shall be able to convince the House that this Clause should be struck out, but what I am trying to do in moving these Amendments is to make the House understand what a rotten Bill it is they are passing. Clause 31, I submit, is a thoroughly undesirable Clause from beginning to end. It gives the Secretary of State the power to coerce the local authorities by the old fashioned method of mandamus. I should have thought that Secretaries of State of the different Departments would now have understood that it is impossible to coerce local authorities by this antiquated means, although to stop the grant from the central authority has been efficacious in cases where the education department has had to deal with recalcitrant authorities. To try to coerce them
    by mandamus is, however, little short of ridiculous, and, therefore, I hope the House will agree to strike out the Clause.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to second the Amendment, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that the power of mandamus is an absolutely useless weapon to turn against a local authority. The only method by which you can bring a local authority into line is by withholding grants. I second the Amendment also in order to try to get a definite statement from the Home Secretary that he only intends to act in cases where the local authority does not perform its duties, and then only in cases where the State pays half the cost. In all other cases I take it the State would not interfere, because in those cases the local authority—[HON MEMBERS: "Divide."] I know that nowadays when the House approves of the principle of a Bill, it thinks that the details ought to be passed without any further discussion, and it is because of that we sometimes get such slipshod legislation. This is a Bill of great importance, and I think we are entitled to discuss its details. I do not see why those who do not take an interest in the measure should not go home and have a peaceful night, but at any rate they might allow other members, who really desire to make improvements in the measure, to pursue their task without interruption.
    Mr. COTTON: If this goes on we shall be all mentally deficient.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think I need say more than that I shall stand by this Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 26.

    Division No. 228.]

    AYES.

    [1.50 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brace, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Adamson, William

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Bryce, John Annan

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Delany, William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Barnes, George N.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Barton, William

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Doris, William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Clough, William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Clynes, John R.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Field, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Reddy, Michael

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Maclean, Donald

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Goldstone, Frank

    McGhee, Richard

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gulland, John William

    Manfield, Harry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rowlands, James

    Hackett, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meagher, Michael

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hazleton, Richard

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queers Co., Leix)

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

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Middlebrook, William

    Sheehy, David

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Shortt, Edward

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Molloy, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Mooney, John J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morrell, Philip

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Muldoon, John

    Sutherland, John E.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Munro, Robert

    Sutton, John E.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Webb, H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Dowd, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Grady, James

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Malley, William

    Wiles, Thomas

    King, J.

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

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Shee, James John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Leach, Charles

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pease, Herbert (Darlington)

    NOES.

    Baird, J. L.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

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

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Barnston, Harry

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Grant, J. A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Greene, W. R.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Gretton, John

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Goldsmith.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Bill to the word "special" [paragraph (6), in Clause 40], stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question 'That
    the words of the Bill [Clauses 32 to 39] to the word "special" [in paragraph (6), Clause 40], stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 229.]

    AYES.

    [2.0 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bentham, G. J.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Adamson, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Clough, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Brace, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barnes, George N.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Crumley, Patrick

    Barton, William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Cullinan, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    King, Joseph

    O'Shee, James John

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

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pointer, Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reddy, Michael

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Maclean, Donald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Field, William

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

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robinson, Sidney

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McGhee, Richard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, James

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Manfield, Harry

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Sheehy, David

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

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Shortt, Edward

    Gulland, John William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meagher, Michael

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Middlebrook, William

    Sutton, John E.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Muldoon, John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Robert

    Webb, H.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Dowd, John

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    NOES.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Grant, J. A.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Greene, W. R.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gretton, John

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hogge, James Myles

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Samuel Scott and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Question put accordingly. "That those words stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 19.

    Division No. 230.]

    AYES.

    [2.7 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Adamson, William

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bentham, G. J.

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

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Arnold, Sydney

    Boland, John Pius

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Clancy John Joseph

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Clough, William

    Baker Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Brace, William

    Clynes, John R.

    Barnes, George N.

    Brady, P. J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Barnston, Harry

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Barton, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cullinan, J.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shee, James John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Delany, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    King, J.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Doris, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Reddy, Michael

    Dully, William J.

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Field, William

    Maclean, Donald

    Rowlands, James

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    McGhee, Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Sheehy, David

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Manfield, Harry

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Gulland, John William

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Hackett, John

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Middlebrook, William

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, Michael

    Trevelyan, Charles Ph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morrell, Philip

    Webb, H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Muldoon, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Munro, Robert

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Whyte, A. F.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Dowd, John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    NOES.

    Beach, Hon. Michael High Hicks

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Grant, J. A.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gretton, John

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Samuel Scott and Mr. Rawlinson

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    CLAUSE 40.—(Remaining Portion.)
    Special cases, from a certified institution to a State institution;

    (g) the discharge of patients from institutions;

    (h) the absence of patients from institutions under licence or temporarily without licence;

    (i) the notifications to be made by the managers in the event of the outbreak of an infectious disease in an institution and in the event of the death of a patient in an institution or absent therefrom under licence;

    482

    (j) the conveyance of persons to and from institutions;

    (k) the burial of persons dying in institutions;

    (l) the powers and duties of persons appointed guardians of defectives under this Act; the reports to be made by such guardians as to defectives under their guardianship; the visitation of such defectives; and their discharge from guardianship;

    (m) the granting, renewal, and revocation of, approval of homes for defectives;

    483

    (n) the holding of inquiries and any other matter necessary or proper for the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act with respect to institutions, and the inmates thereof, and to guardianship;

    (o) the application, as respects any matters to be dealt with by regulations, of any of the provisions of the Lunacy Acts, 1890 to 1911, dealing with the like matters, subject to the necessary modifications and adaptations;

    (p) the study of improved methods of treating mental deficiency by duly qualified practitioners in the institutions.

    (2) The regulations made under this Section shall make applicable as respects institutions and the patients therein the provisions of Sections 40, 41, 42, 47, and 53 of the Lunacy Act, 1890:
    Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as restricting any power of the Secretary of State under Sub-section (1) of this Section.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Special cases," and to insert instead thereof the words "Cases appropriate to State institutions." On a previous Amendment I have already explained this proposal is in order to carry out a promise made in Committee, and on a previous Amendment I believe the intention of this Amendment was accepted by the whole House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    My reason for doing so is to briefly raise the question whether such important proposals as this should be dealt with by regulations of the Secretary of State or by a Provisional Order which comes under control of the House. I think this Sub-section, dealing with the discharge of patients from an institution is of great importance. It is a matter which directly affects the liberty of the subject, and it is essential that these regulations should be very carefully framed. It is important that persons who should not continue in institutions for mental defectives should be released in proper time, and it is a matter of such importance that the House should have some control over it. I will not elaborate this point at so late an hour, but I do wish
    484
    to point out that it is a matter which a former House of Commons thought of such importance as to appear in a Bill itself. In the Lunacy Act of 1890 there were no less than 342 Clauses, besides twenty-two forms scheduled. All such details as are to be dealt with under this Section by the fiat of the Home Secretary were in that Act dealt with in great detail and with great care, and I do say that matters of this kind, affecting, as they do most closely, the liberty of the subject, should not be decided by the Home Office, but should come under the cognisance of the House in the form of Provisional Orders if the House thinks fit not to embody them in the Bill.
    Mr. FALLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: Though I recognise that the hon. Member makes his appeal on the general ground of principle, with regard to paragraph (g) I would refer him to Sub-section (2) of Clause 24, which provides that "Without prejudice to their powers and duties under any regulations which the Secretary of State may make for further or more frequent inspection and visitation, it shall be the duty of the Board, through one or more Commissioners, to inspect every certified institution, certified house, and approved home at least once in each year, and either through themselves or their inspectors to inspect every certified institution, certified house, and approved home one additional time in each year and every defective under guardianship, at least twice in every year, and any Commissioner shall have power to discharge at any time any person detained in a certified institution or certified house or under guardianship under this Act." Therefore, the very example which the hon. Member has taken is more precisely and particularly dealt with in this Clause than in the similar Clause in the Lunacy Act. The liberty of the subject is very specially safeguarded in the definite terms of the Bill itself. With regard to the general principle, I would appeal to the hon. Member not to seek to insert in an Act of Parliament details as to the regulations necessary to the administration of the Act. It is one thing for Parliament to retain a general superintendence over administration, and it is quite another thing for Parliament to endeavour to carry out the details of the administration. Those ought to be carried out by bodies with general powers, of administration.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think my hon. Friend has done a good service in bringing this matter forward. I differ entirely from the Home Secretary and it is exactly the difference of opinion that a person out of office has with a person in office. This is an entirely new system of relegating important matters to a Government department which has sprung up since the Lunacy Act 1890, where every detail was carefully set out in the Bill. I am not going to lay the blame on this Government or the last Government, whichever it may be, and it is a matter which has come to a head in the last two or three years. This Section is probably as bad as any Section in any recent Act of Parliament. In Clause 40 the whole of the powers of the House of Commons are being passed to the Secretary of State who is to make regulations in any way he thinks fit. I am not distrusting the present occupant of the office in the least, but it is a bad system to relegate things that have always, been dealt with by the House to a bureau, however well that bureau may be administered by any particular man. It must be remembered that Clause 24, Sub-section (2) states that it is all to be without prejudice to their powers and duties under regulations made by the Home Secretary. When you come to read pages 26 and 27 of the Bill (Clause 40) you see the Home Secretary makes such regulations as he likes not included in the Act of Parliament. There is a difficulty in getting hold of a copy of regulations of this kind and therefore I think my hon. Friend is right in calling the attention of the House to this matter, and I also think it is important that the House should know that it is parting with a considerable portion of its rights and I believe, too large a portion.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like to know whether these regulations are to be laid on the Table of the House or not, because I was told by an hon. Member sitting on the benches below that under Scottish Bills these regulations have to be laid on the Table. I do not know whether that is correct or not.
    Mr. McKENNA: Clause 67.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then have they to be laid? I can only give again the case in which I wrote at least twenty or thirty letters to the Home Office and it was impossible to get a release. It was not the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna). It was some
    486
    of his predecessors who simply gave a stereotyped reply. Ought there not to be some appeal for the liberty of the subject, and could there not be independent experts? The Home Secretary said "No, I am going to rely on the medical officer of the asylum." Therefore, there is no liberty of the subject if these regulations are not going to be laid on the Table of the House. Of course, we shall never have any opportunity of discussing them—
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I interrupt on a point of Order? Under the section referred to, Section 67, they are not being laid on the Table of the House. Laying on the Table is a perfectly well-known expression, meaning that they are laid on the Table for a certain number of days during which exception can be taken to them. This Clause 67 does not do that. It says they shall be laid before Parliament, "and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act." Therefore, Parliament has no control over them at all.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My point is that if a man is sane and is in an asylum there is not the slightest chance of getting that man out. Is there no appeal if an independent medical man is of opinion that a patient in one of the institutions is of sound mind? Ought that man still to be kept there? In the case I have mentioned there is a man who would still be in Broadmoor Asylum, where he had been for twenty-six years, had it not been for the provisions of an order that enables poor people to be transferred on the ground of the cost of relatives going to see them at long distances.
    If it had not been for that he would have been in an asylum to-day, though he is just as sane as the Home Secretary. I went down to this asylum on a great many occasions, and I find myself in exactly the same position to-day as I was seven or eight years ago. Where in the opinion of an independent medical man a patient is not insane, will the Home Secretary say to me that there is no appeal against the stereotyped order of the Home Office? His predecessors said, "We are not going to be guided, even if you bring the greatest specialists down from London, by their opinion, but by that of the medical officer of the institution." That is not protection of the liberty of the subject, and I do say that in a case of this kind—where a man has been twenty-six years in an asylum, although as sane as any man in this House, and a good deal

    487
    saner, perhaps—and in similar cases, anyone who tries to deal with them runs bang up against the orders of the Home Office.
    Cannot the Home Secretary say why this wretched man was used for the purposes of the officials of the prison—that is to say, why he was made to look after the garden and to shave the officials. The man is now a free subject, and as I have said, a constituent of my own, entitled to vote in the election of a Member of this House. What I want to know is, cannot the Home Secretary give me some hope that in a similar case there will be a right of appeal of some kind or other to a specialist, so as to get away from the stereotyped officials of the Home Office. Everybody who has had to fight the officials of the Home Office knows that when you begin a job of that kind you will be running up against a stone wall all the time. I am dealing here with a matter which caused me an intense amount of worry and annoyance, and I want to get a sympathetic reply from the Home Office.
    May I point out that in Clause 24 provision is only made for the inspection of a certified institution by a Commissioner once in every year, whereas, in the case of a prison like Broadmoor the Commissioners are going there continually. It is because of the risks that a man, such as I have described, may be kept in an institution of this kind for a longer period than is necessary that I am putting these facts before the Home Secretary.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: May I point out to the hon. Baronet that he will have no difficulty whatever in getting a discharge for anybody who is an inmate of a certified institution under Clause 24. All the hon. Baronet would have to do would be to persuade one of the Commissioners to discharge the case, and the period of detention would at once cease.
    Question put, "That paragraph (g) stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes. 24.

    Division No. 231.]

    AYES.

    [2.35 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Duffy, William J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Adamson, William

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford. N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Arnold, Sydney

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Barnes, George N.

    Field, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Maclean, Donald

    Barton, William

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    France, G. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gilmour, Captain John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Gladstone. W. G. C.

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Manfield, Harry

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Brace, William

    Gulland, John William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meagher, Michael

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey,T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Middlebrook, William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molloy, Michael

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morrell, Philip

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Muldoon, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Robert

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Clough, William

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Clynes, John R.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cotton, William Francis

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Dowd, John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Malley, William

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Joyce, Michael

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

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

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Delany, William

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    O'Shee, James John

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Dickinson, W. H.

    King, Joseph

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Doris, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Sheehy, David

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Reddy, Michael

    Shortt, Edward

    Wiles, Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Sutton, John E.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Guest and Mr. Webb.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Rowlands, James

    Tennant, Harold John

    NOES.

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

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Barnston, Harry

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Grant, J. A.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Greene, W. R.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Gretton, John

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Henderson, Major M. (Berkshire)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hogge, James Myles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Guinness and Sir A. Markham.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the word "January" [in Clause 71], stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the word "January" [in Clause 71], stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 232.]

    AYES.

    [2.44 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lyell, Charles

    Adamson, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ffrench, Peter

    McGhee, Richard

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Field, William

    Maclean, Donald

    Barnes, George N.

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Barton, William

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Goldstone, Frank

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

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Manfield, Harry

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Gulland, John William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Boland, John Pius

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hackett, John

    Marshall, Arthur H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meagher, Michael

    Brace, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Middlebrook, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, M.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Cawley, Harold (Lancs., Heywood)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Munro, R.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Clough, William

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clynes, J. R.

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Dowd, John

    Cullinan, John

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shee, James John

    Delany, William

    King, J.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pointer, Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Reddy, M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Sheehy, David

    White, J, Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Sutherland, John E.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Sutton, John E.

    Rowlands, James

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Guest and Mr. Webb.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Scan Ian, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    NOES.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bennett-Goldney Francis

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Grant, James Augustus |

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Horner, A. L.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Falle.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton, M.

    Morrell, Philip

    Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Bill to the word 'January' [in Clause 71], stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 16.

    Division No. 233.]

    AYES.

    [2.50 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Keating, Matthew

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Adamson, William

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Doris, William

    King, Joseph

    Arnold, Sydney

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Leach, Charles

    Barnes, George N.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barnston, Harry

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Barton, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lundon, Thomas

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Field, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    McGhee, Richard

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Maclean, Donald

    Boland, John Pius

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Glazebrook. Captain Philip K.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brace, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Brady, Patrick Joseph F. L.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Gulland, John William

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

    Bryce, John Annan

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Manfield, Harry

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hackett, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harcourt, Robert V (Montrose)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hazleton, Richard

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen,

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Middlebrook, William

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clough, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Molloy, Michael

    Clynes, J. R.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Muldoon, John

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Munro, Robert

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Crumley, Patrick

    John, Edward Thomas

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Doherty, Philip

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Sutton, John E.

    O'Dowd, John

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    O'Malley, William

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Shee, James John

    Rowlands, James

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-tees)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Parry, Thomas H.

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

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Sheehy, David

    Wiles, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Reddy, Michael

    Stewart, Gershom

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Guest and Mr. Webb.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    NOES.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Grant, James Augustus

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hogge, James Myles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Goldsmith.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Horner, Andrew Long

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

    CLAUSE 71.—(Short Title, Extent, and Commencement).
    Sub-section (3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), Clause 71, to leave out the word "January," and to insert instead thereof the word "April."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman the father of this Amendment? Is all Home Office legislation to come in on 1st April?
    Mr. KING: I am rather sorry that this Amendment should have been brought forward. I do suggest it is an unnecessary Amendment. It looks very much as if the salaries of the officers are to come into operation six months before the actual beneficent work of the Bill itself. I think that needs some explanation, and I invite the Home Secretary to make a statement.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will do so on the next Amendment.
    Amendment put, and agreed to.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause the words, "except that as respects the constitution of the Board of Control, and the appointment of the secretary, officers, and servants of the Board, it shall come into operation on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and thirteen.
    In this Amendment it is proposed to take power to make the appointments
    494
    of the officers in the month of November. The reason for that is that the newly appointed officers have to prepare schemes under which the local authorities have to act. They will have to receive proposals from the local authorities as to how they propose to spend the money provided under the Bill. Unless we appoint the officers first there will be nobody to advise the local authorities.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move "That the Bill be now read the third time.
    Mr. BOOTH: In order to get a statement from the Government, I move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to take an Order which does not appear on the Order Paper of the day? The Third Reading of this Bill does not appear on the Order Paper, and I submit that it is not giving the House a fair opportunity of drafting a reasoned Amendment to the Third Reading. To the Insurance Bill, a similar Bill to this, a reasoned Amendment was drafted, and was moved. The fact that you are now allowing the House to discuss this Order which does not appear on the Order Paper, deprives us of the opportunity of moving a reasoned Amendment. I submit also that taking an Order which is not on the Order Paper deprives Members of the opportunity of obtaining information for dealing with the main subject of debate. The material

    495
    for giving reasoned arguments cannot be in their possession if they have no notice that the Third Reading will be taken. Therefore, on the principle that nothing that is not on the Order Paper should be taken, and also from the point of view of the convenience of Members, and their not having an opportunity of obtaining the necessary information, I submit that the Third Reading should not be taken.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a very common practice to take the Third Reading of a Bill even though it does not appear on the Order Paper. With regard to notice, notice was given yesterday. It was practically, as I understood, part of the arrangement which was come to—that the Bill was to occupy two or three hours after Eleven o'clock. It has now taken four hours. Everybody has had ample notice: The Prime Minister to-day at Question Time said he proposed to conclude the Bill, so that I think every hon. Member has had ample notice that it was the intention of the Government to take the Third Reading.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I submit to you, Sir, that it is contrary to the rules of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]—contrary to the practice of this House to take the Third Reading on an important Bill like this on the same day as the Report stage, and I submit that no arrangement was come to last night as to taking the Third Reading to-day, unless some arrangement was come to behind the Speaker's Chair, an arrangement which has no binding effect on the House. Unfortunately I was unable to be in the House early to-day, having been up till a late hour last night, and I did not hear the Prime Minister. If I had heard him say that the Postmaster-General was to take the Third Reading I could have got my material ready. As it is we have had no opportunity. I submit this is not the proper time to take the Third Reading.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not contrary to the practice of the House, but a very common practice, if there is a consensus of opinion in favour of such a course. After the Divisions which have taken place to-day I think everybody would come to the conclusion that the general opinion of the House is in favour of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am very sorry to be so persistent, but this is rather a serious matter. We have the Report stage, on
    496
    which four-fifths of the Bill has been closured en bloc, and now we are asked without notice and without it appearing on the Order Paper, to take the Third Reading. I submit that this is bringing Parliamentary Debate into contempt.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can judge whether the Report stage was conducted as a Report stage or as a Committee stage. If the Report stage had been conducted as it is ordinarily, the hon. Member would have had ample time. He chose to treat it as though it were a Committee stage.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On that point—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I call on the hon. Member for Pontefract.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Mr. Speaker, you charged me with conducting—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I made no charge against the hon. Member at all. He said that Parliamentary debate was being brought into contempt, and I pointed out that there had been ample discussion and that the Bill had been treated as if it were in Committee.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: You said it had been treated by me as if it were in Committee. That is absolutely untrue.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can hardly deny that, if he looks at the Order Paper.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think a small minority such as we are can hardly complain of the time that has been given. On the Third Reading, I now ask, does the Government really intend to press it to-night. I think we had enough controversy for to-day. If they only take non-controversial things afterwards, I think we might close the sitting down.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move the rejection of the Bill, and, if I can get a co-teller, I am going into the. Lobby against it. It seems to me that this Bill has been treated in a most extraordinary way. Its history from the beginning has been peculiar. It is the result of a report of a Royal Commission which inquired into the condition of the feeble-minded. On that Commission were a certain number of doctors and one or two Members of this House. The Report of the Commission was then taken by the Home Office and translated into a Bill which was first introduced into this House last year. The

    497
    Bill was then largely remodelled in Committee upstairs, and has been reintroduced this year, but owing to the fact that certain Members of this House objected to the principle of the Bill, care has been taken to see that those Members should have nothing whatever to do with its discussion. I happen to be one of those who believe that you have no right to put in prison for life a man or a woman who has committed no crime. I believe further that those who are on top in this country have no right to pass penal legislation for the lower orders which does, not apply to themselves. From both those points of view I object to this Bill from beginning to end. Care has been taken this year to see that those people who share my views, and I myself, should have no voice in the discussion of the Bill.
    We were excluded from the Committee upstairs, and down here four-fifths of the Bill has been closured in a way that no other Bill has been treated before. There never before has been a Bill treated on Report stage as this Bill has been treated. We have had no discussion at all as to whether a woman who has an illegitimate child or is pregnant with an illegitimate child should be classed as feeble-minded or brought within the meshes of the law. That is a perfectly iniquitous position of things when we remember that women have no voice whatever in the government of the country. Almost the whole of the important Clause 2 was closured without a word of discussion. We have had not a word of discussion on the question of whether this Act should be administered by the Boards of Guardians or by local authorities. A great deal of discussion has arisen outside this House as to whether the Government were wise in allowing Boards of Guardians to set up and manage these institutions, and to manage them in connection with workhouses. No discussion was
    allowed in this House on that subject, and no discussion was allowed upon a fundamental principle of the Bill which is its compulsory character.
    Then there is further the question as to whether these orders were to be permanent and people were to be incarcerated permanently in these institutions or only temporarily. No word of discussion was allowed upon that. All these things point to a curious state of things. It is the result of an alliance between the two Front Benches, and when the two Front Benches get together any independent Member of this House stands a very poor chance of having his voice heard. This measure is supported by the hon. Member for East Birmingham, who is the chief organiser of the Conservative party, he and the Home Office officials have managed to secure control over the Liberal Cabinet and have got them to consent to the Bill. I object to a measure being forced through this House by the use of the Government Whips when it originated from the Conservative party, and I would equally object if it originated from the Socialist party. For all these reasons I object to the Bill, because it is a bad Bill, and because, owing to the collusion of the two Front Benches, it has been taken in a manner absolutely unprecedented and which can only call down ridicule upon our Debates. I do not wish to see this sham House of Commons a perpetual factor in the government of this country. For all these reasons, I beg to move that "This Bill be read the Third time upon this day three months," and I hope we shall not be sitting in this House three months hence doing the Government's behests upon a measure of this kind.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 3.

    Division No. 234.]

    AYES.

    [3.15 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bigland, Alfred

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Clough, William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Arnold, Sydney

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Brace, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Barnes, George N.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Crumley, Patrick

    Barnston, Harry

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Cullinan, John

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Barton, William

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, 3.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Delany, William

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

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Devlin, Joseph

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Keating, Mathew

    O'Shee, James John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Doris, William

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Duffy, William J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    King, Joseph

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Leach, Charles

    Pointer, Joseph

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Reddy, Michael

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Field, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Feinnes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    McGhee, Richard

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Maclean, Donald

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rowlands, James

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Sheehy, David

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Manfleld, Harry

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meagher, Michael

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West)

    Marcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Middlebrook, William

    Sutton, John E.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Munro, Robert

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

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Horner, A. L.

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Dowd, John

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Malley, William

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Joyce, Michael

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

    NOES.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Sir A. Markham.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Question put, and agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Wednesday).
LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTIONS (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTIONS (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Various Authorities to Contribute towards Acquisition of Crystal Palace.)
  (1) The authorities mentioned in the Schedule to this Act may respectively contribute towards the coat of the acquisition of the whole or any part of the Crystal
  500
  Palace any sum or sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sums set opposite to their respective names in the said Schedule.
  (2) Any metropolitan borough council and the council of any administrative county, any municipal corporation, and any urban district council in England and Wales (other than the London County Council and the authorities mentioned in the Schedule to this Act) may, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, contribute towards the cost of the said acquisition such sums of money as they may think fit.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I just say in regard to this Bill that I think the President of the Local Government Board might explain to the Committee what the

  501
  intentions of the Bill are so as to facilitate its passage.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): The object of the Bill is to enable the City of London, the London County Council and seven or eight metropolitan borough councils to contribute towards the purchase and acquisition of the Crystal Palace. Some £238,000 has been collected by private subscriptions and contributed by public authorities for the purchase of the Crystal Palace, and the large acreage of ground attached to it. Under the existing law it is not possible for the local authorities legally to contribute to this object unless they have statutory sanction for the money which various of them have by the votes of their council already decided to give. The justification for the Bill consists in one simple fact. The House of Commons this year has allowed the London County Council, by a public Bill brought in and passed through Parliament, to subscribe £30,000 towards this purpose. The proposal was not challenged in any way. No question was raised in the House and the Committee upstairs gave the permission without difficulty. It does seem to me that, as the House has sanctioned a contribution by the county council of £30,000, these other authorities should have the same power given to them legally to contribute to the same object. Altogether £90,000 has been promised by various local authorities and the Palace will be managed by a trust in which the local authorities and others who have contributed will have a proportionate share. The trust will be constituted on lines similar to those on which the Alexandra Palace Trust was formed some years ago. The Bill before the Committee legalises the contributions of the local authorities; it enables others who may contribute to come in; and it provides for
  502
  returns of the contributions of the various local authorities to be made to the Local Government Board. The loan period will be on the lines of the loan period sanctioned under various public Acts such as the 1875 Public Health Act, and the County Council Act of 1888. It is only right that in this short statement I should say that the public generally are exceedingly indebted to the Lord Mayor of London for the public spirited appeal which he made on behalf of this object. Further, we are all indebted to the private donors who have come forward with contributions, and we are extremely indebted also to the Earl of Plymouth for the public spirit which he has displayed in connection with the matter for the last three or four years. I sincerely trust that a project such as this to add to the public institutions which exist for the benefit, not only of London, but of the rest of the Kingdom, a great institution such as the Crystal Palace, which has proved itself to be of immense value in promoting the education and the happiness of many millions of people who have passed through its doors, may have an entirely successful career. I appeal, therefore, to the Committee to give this benevolent and useful project its blessing by allowing the Bill to pass to-night with hardly any criticism, if any at all.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  Whereupon, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes before Four o'clock a.m.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  Dublin-Garristown Road.
  Dublin-Garristown Road.
  Education (Ireland).
  Education (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mitchelstown Workhouse (Maternity Nursing).
  Mitchelstown Workhouse (Maternity Nursing).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Oil Storage.
  Oil Storage.
  Re-vaccination.
  Re-vaccination.
  British Red Cross Society (Army Form).
  British Red Cross Society (Army Form).
AIRCEAFT.
  Monoplanes.
  Monoplanes.
  Pit Ponies.
  Pit Ponies.
  Factories and Workshops.
  Factories and Workshops.
  Live Stock Imports.
  Live Stock Imports.
  Temperance Hotels.
  Temperance Hotels.
  Alexander Adamovitch.
  Alexander Adamovitch.
  Woollen Exports.
  Woollen Exports.
  Railway Accident (Colchester).
  Railway Accident (Colchester).
  Rates on Live Stock.
  Rates on Live Stock.
  Returned letters.
  Returned letters.
  Confiscation of Animals.
  Confiscation of Animals.
GOVERNMENT OF THE SUDAN LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL. [H.L.]
CONYNGHAM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]
GOMM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]
KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
LORD WIMBORNES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered To-moorrow.

WORTHING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.

ARUNDELL ESTATE (CLOSING OF ARUN- DELL STREET AND PANTON SQUARE) BILL. [H.L.]
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
GRAYS AND TILBURY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SOUTHGATE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate
1460
from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18).

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

Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders.

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:

Post Office (London) Railway.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

DUNDEE BOUNDARIES BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Glenconner. The paragraph which I propose to amend is in Clause 3, and runs as follows—
"The expression 'owners of foreign-going vessels' means all persons residing or having their principal place of business in the United Kingdom and paying shipping clues in respect of a vessel or vessels registered in the United Kingdom and trading or working between places in the United Kingdom and places abroad."
I move to add to this paragraph the same words as are contained in the next paragraph in the clause. The words which I propose to add are—
"but shall not include any authority, company, or body authorised by the Act to appoint a member or members of the Board."
I am informed that the question of the representation of the various bodies interested in the Southampton Harbour Board was carefully gone into by the Board of Trade, who appointed a Commission which settled the representation of these various bodies, and I understand that it was due to an accidental omission that the words which I propose to add were not included in this as well as in the succeeding paragraph. The London and South Western Railway Company have laid out a great deal of money, very wisely and well, at Southampton, and to them is undoubtedly due a great deal of the prosperity of the port. I wish to say at once that I am moving this Amendment in no hostile spirit whatever to that company, who everybody admits should have fair representation on this authority. But I am acting on behalf of the Southampton Corporation, and they and other persons interested think that to give the railway company a vote on account of their foreign-going shipping interests as well as in respect of themselves as a railway company would be to duplicate their interests and to give them an undue proportion of representation. The railway company pay only one-tenth of the amount paid by the foreign-going shipping in the port of Southampton, and if they are to vote with reference to representation of foreign-going shipping, that would give them an undue voting influence. I suggest to the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade
1462
that as his Department appointed the Commission which settled the terms of representation the Board of Trade should support those terms and also the Amendment which I am moving. The issue is whether the railway company should be given more representation with reference to the Harbour Board or be left with the representation settled on by the Commission appointed by the Board of Trade. In my opinion their present representation of three is a fair one, and I ask the House to accept my Amendment and say that the representation as originally laid down by the Board of Trade is sufficient.
Amendment Moved—
Clause 3, page 5, line 26, after ("abroad") insert ("but shall not include any authority company or body authorised by the Act to appoint a member or members of the Board").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD CLINTON: I hope your Lordships will not agree to accept this Amendment. My noble friend who has moved it said that the railway company should have only the representation which was laid down for them by the Board of Trade, but I think if my noble friend would look more closely into the Bill he would understand that the actual representation both of appointed and of elected members is exactly that which has been laid down by the Board of Trade itself. The history of the matter is, I think, a very clear one. By the Southampton Railway Act of 1911 the Board of Trade were required to appoint a Commission to look into the constitution of the Harbour Board of Southampton, and in the event of their finding any modification necessary the Harbour Board were bound to bring in a Bill to carry that out. As a result of the Report of the Commission the Harbour Board was divided up into appointed and elected members, and the London and South Western Railway Company were entitled to three appointed members, and were also in view of the fact that they were owners of a fleet of foreign-going vessels, entitled to be placed on the register of electors for that part of the Board. This Amendment now endeavours to take away from the railway company that which the Board of Trade laid down they were entitled to have. I am glad that my noble friend has spoken in a favourable manner of the work of this railway company at Southampton. They are the owners of the docks they have spent upwards of £5,000,000 upon

1463
them, and have developed them into an undertaking, not only of commercial, but of great national importance, and we say that they are fully entitled to this further representation. I think from reading the Report it is quite clear that this was not an accidental omission in any way. The Report very clearly states that the company were entitled to a number of representatives as traders and owners in the port, and in the Appendix to the Report appears the name of the London and South Western Railway Company as entitled to elect members as part of the Board. I do not think there can be any question that that was not fully before the Board of Trade at the time. If it had been the view of the Southampton Corporation that the railway company were not entitled to this privilege, undoubtedly evidence ought to have been laid before the Board of Trade or before the Committee of the House of Commons at the time the Bill was under consideration by them. But there is a further point. When the railway company appeared before the Board of Trade they claimed that they were entitled to five representatives on the Board; but partly, we understand, in view of the fact that they would be placed upon the register of voters that number of representatives was reduced to three. So we have this somewhat peculiar position, that the Board of Trade reduced the number of the railway company's representatives because they were to be on the register of electors, and now the Southampton Corporation is endeavouring to take them off the register of electors because they are represented in another way. It seems to me that it would be quite inequitable that the representation of the railway company should be reduced in the manner proposed, and I therefore hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My noble friend the Master of the Horse has asked me on this occasion to represent him and to state to the House the Board of Trade attitude on this question. I do not think the noble Lord opposite was quite correct in a saying that the Board of Trade contemplated that the railway company should have further representation than the three members that were allotted to them. They had this special representation given to them owing to their great interest, and no doubt very properly so. But as regards the general
1464
merits of this Amendment, I am asked to say that the attitude of the Board of Trade is simply that of being neutral. The Board leave the matter entirely to your Lordships' House to decide.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into this matter in any great detail, but I think I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to what is the Parliamentary attitude of the question. Personally I should be sorry if my noble friend pressed the Amendment, and for this reason. The noble Lord said, and I have no doubt perfectly accurately, that the absence of these three lines from this particular part of the clause was an accidental omission, but it is a very regrettable omission, and it would be most unfortunate if we had many of its nature in the course of Private Bill procedure. In accordance with the Standing Orders of Your Lordships' House, this Bill was deposited, after notice, on December 20 last. I have the original copy of the Bill here. These three lines do not appear; and the London and South Western Railway Company when they got a copy of the Bill, as they could have done in Christmas week last, if they had not seen it before, understood absolutely the position in which they could expect to be put, and all through the proceedings upon this Bill before the House of Commons Committee they fought knowing on what ground they could expect to stand if the Bill got through. The Bill was unopposed in your Lordships' House and still remains in the same form. The noble Lord referred to the fact that these words appear elsewhere in the clause. So they did last December. It would be very unfortunate to parties in future if, after agreement upon a certain basis had been arrived at, attention was called in your Lordships' House a fortnight before the end of the Session to what was described as an accidental omission, and we were asked to put it right, thereby considerably harming the privileges which your Lordships' House and the House of Commons extend to opponents, or possible opponents, of Bills, who would have been at liberty to have been heard at length on the point before the Committee of this or the other House. As to the merits of the question, my noble friend said that his Amendment effected what the Commission desired should be carried out. I have the Report

1465
of the Commission before me, and I am bound to say I can find no guidance as to what the Commission thought on this particular point. So tar as their Report goes, there is no guidance one way or the other. The point raised by Lord Clinton as to the representation having been reduced from five to three in consideration of the position of the railway company under the Bill as it now stands was, I confess, a new one to me. I do not find it in the Report, but I have no doubt the noble Lord has made inquiries and satisfied himself that that is so. In the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RIBBLE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next" be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Wednesday the 6th of August next.
KIRKCALDY AND DYSART WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DUNFERMLINE CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
WEMYSS TRAMWAYS ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill relating to Wemyss Tramways —Was presented by the Earl of Craven; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 141.)

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
EARL BATHURST: There are two or three Amendments standing in my name on the Paper which are of a purely drafting nature. The object of the first, which I now move, is to transpose Clause 4 from its present place in the Bill and to put it in as a subsection to Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("person") insert the following new subsection, viz.:
(4) Where payment has been ordered td be made to the collecting officer, the person on whom the affiliation order has been made shall give to the collecting officer notice in writing immediately upon any change of his address or place of abode, and if he fails to do so without reasonable excuse he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Attachment of salary or wages for purposes of affiliation orders.
2.—(1) When an affiliation order has been made, either before or after the commencement of this Act, the justices who made the order or any court of summary jurisdiction may either at the time of making the affiliation order or (after complaint made) at any subsequent time, make an order (in this Act referred to as an "affiliation attachment order") which shall have effect to charge to such an amount each week as is specified in the order any salary, wages, or other remuneration which at any time while the affiliation attachment order remains in force become due and payable by or from any employer on whom notice of such order is served to the person on whom the affiliation order is made: Provided that no such attachment order shall be made or be binding upon the employer in the case of any employee whose terms of service permit of termination upon less than one week's notice.
(2) An affiliation attachment order shall not have any effect as against an employer unless or until notice thereof is served upon him in accordance with rules of court.
(3) An employer upon whom notice of an affiliation attachment order has been served shall so often as any moneys become payable by him by way of salary or wages to the person on whom the affiliation order was made, deduct from such moneys a sum sufficient to satisfy the charge thereon, together with the cost of duly forwarding the amount by registered post, and shall forthwith pay the amount so deducted by sending it to the collecting officer or other person specified in the affiliation attachment order, and every sum so deducted and paid shall be taken to the extent thereof to have been paid by the employer in satisfaction of the wages or salary payable by him to the person on whom the affiliation order is

1467
made: Provided that the obligation of the employer hereunder shall not extend to any arrears due under the affiliation order but shall be limited to the amount falling due thereunder week by week.
(4) If, after he has been duly served with notice of an affiliation attachment order, an employer makes any payment by way of salary or wages to the person on whom the affiliation order has been made and fails to make any payment required by the affiliation attachment order, the amount in default shall be recoverable summarily by the person to whom the amount is payable under the affiliation attachment order as a civil debt due to that person from the employer.
(5) An affiliation attachment order may at any time be varied, suspended, or cancelled by a court of summary jurisdiction, and every such variation, suspension, or cancellation shall take effect on notice thereof being served upon the employer in accordance with rules of court; but an employer upon whom notice of an affiliation attachment order has been served shall not, in making any deduction or payment required by the order, be concerned to inquire whether any moneys are due under the affiliation order or the affiliation attachment order, and shall not, except as aforesaid, be affected by any notice to the contrary. The employer shall be entitled to receive reasonable notice of all proceedings hereunder, and, if he think fit, to appear thereat.
(6) The charge created by an affiliation attachment order shall have priority to any assignment made or charge created by the person on whom the affiliation order was made, whether made or created before the affiliation order, and an affiliation attachment order shall have effect as if no such assignment or charge had been made or created.
(7) This section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Wages Attachment Abolition Act, 1870, or the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but nothing in this section shall apply to any soldier of the regular forces so long as he is subject to the provisions of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act, 1881.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to omit from the earlier part of subsection (1) the words "either at the time of making the affiliation order or (after complaint made) at any subsequent time," and to insert in their place the words "after complaint made and on proof that default has been made in payment of any sum due under the affiliation order."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment standing in my name raises a question which was discussed somewhat fully in Committee, and received the support, I think the hearty support, of both the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. It was postponed for consideration to this stage on the understanding that Lord Strachie, as representing the Home Office, would
1468
further consider the desirability of insetting these words. I now venture to ask him to accept the Amendment. The Bill as it stands gives to the justices very drastic powers, and the Amendment. which I suggest would to some extent mitigate the extreme nature of the clause and remove from the justices this large discretion Under my Amendment the proposal in the clause would only operate after there had been default in payment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("may") to ("make") in line 29, and insert ("after complaint made and on proof that default has been made in payment of any sum due under the affiliation order.").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord has again endeavoured to convince me of the desirability of limiting the discretion of the justices in this matter. I must plead guilt to considering that in the great majority of cases of this kind the justices are the proper people to have discretion. I cannot understand why the noble Lord is so much afraid of our country justices in this matter, and I shall be surprised if the House is of the same opinion as the noble Lord. This is not a case where you are dealing with a man who ought to have special care taken about him. I had always thought that the object of the noble Earl in introducing this Bill was to do something to secure the better protection of the woman. Lord Gorell's Amendment would have the effect of minimising that, and of giving less protection to the woman, because undoubtedly the sort of man who leaves the woman in this position is very likely to cause default. Why should not the justices have power, if they think fit, before default is made to say that an attachment order should be made to secure the woman in the matter? Personally I feel rather strongly about this question but if your Lordships think it undesirable to give the justices this discretion it is for you to say so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The desire of my noble friend on the Cross Benches is to make the Bill as effective as he can. The object of the Amendment is to steer the middle course between the interest of the woman in obtaining the money and the interest of the woman in not throwing the man out of work, because that is the interest of the woman too. It is that difficult line which he desires your Lordships

1469
to draw. I agree with him in thinking that this would be a sounder piece of legislation if the Amendment were inserted. At the same time I suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press the Amendment, though I think his view would probably command the support of a majority of your Lordships. But a Bill of this kind is not likely to pass—certainly it will not, pass in the present year, but it is not likely to pass even in the future—except with the co-operation of the responsible Department of Government having jurisdiction in matters of this sort. Unless, therefore, you can in matters of detail get the Home Office cordially upon your side, I do not think it is likely that the Pill will pass into law in the near future For that reason it has been my desire all through the discussions on this Bill to carry the noble Lord opposite with us in our proceedings; and it is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that I think my noble friend Lord Gorell would be wise not to press the Amendment, though I agree with him in regard to the substance of it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BATHURST: The next Amendment is a purely drafting one.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, after ("due") insert ("from"), and leave out ("or from").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE: I have an Amendment in subsection (3) of this clause which I promised to bring up on Report to carry out the views that I suggested when we were discussing this Bill in Committee. I then expressed the opinion that it was desirable to give a certain amount of latitude and discretion to the employer under this drastic clause, which empowers the justices, if they think fit, to make an attachment on a man's wages, and also gives the Court power to order the employer to make payments directly to the Court itself. It has been suggested to me that it is likely that in some cases an employer might object to the trouble of having to send these deducted weekly payments by registered letter to the officer of the Court. Therefore the Amendment which I have put on the Paper gives an option to the employer, if he thinks fit, not to forward the money to an officer of the Court by
1470
registered letter, but to pay it to any other authorised person. It might be more convenient for the employer to pay it to the probation officer, or to the superintendent of police, or in some cases he might prefer that a police constable should call every week and collect the money. It is not only large employers who are concerned. We have to consider small employers of labour in the country, to whom it would be a great trouble to have to send this money by registered letter weekly; while, on the other hand, the small employers might prefer that some one else, even the woman herself, might call at his place of business. I confess I do not feel very strongly on this Amendment, but I think it is desirable to give the employer the power proposed in my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("or other person specified in the affiliation attachment order") and insert ("or, if he think fit, to the person who is entitled under the affiliation order to receive payment").—(Lord Strachie.)
EARL BATRURST: I do not care for this Amendment as it stands, and I do not quite like the words "if the employer thinks fit." I think it would he far better to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates, and not to the discretion of the employer who has to pay over the money. In my opinion the Bill reads better as it is—that the amount so deducted should be sent to the collecting officer or other person specified in the affiliation attachment order. It would be very much better if the Bill were allowed to stand as it is, or even if the noble Lord would not insert the words he proposes to insert but only strike out the words which he proposes to delete.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether, after what the noble Earl has said, the noble Lord opposite would care to persist in his Amendment. I understood him to say that he did not attach very much importance to it. If that is the case, it would be better as my noble friend in charge of the Bill does not like the Amendment not to insert it.
LORD STRACHIE: If the noble Marquess supports the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill I will withdraw the Amendment. I only moved it in the interests of employers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBLTRY: I do not wish to express ally confident opinion upon it. But at this particular stage I would be glad if the noble Lord would not persist in his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BATHURST: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("wages or salary") and insert ("salary, wages or other remuneration").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("or"), and after ("wages") insert ("or other remuneration").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Attachment of pension or income.
3. When an affiliation order has been made, either before or after the commencement of this Act, the justices who made the order or any court of summary jurisdiction may, in any case where there is any pension or income payable to the person on whom the affiliation order has been made and capable of being attached, after giving the person to whom the pension or income is payable an opportunity of being heard, order that such an amount each week as is specified in the affiliation order or any part of such amount be attached and be paid to the person named by the court. Such order shall be an authority to the person by whom such pension or income is payable to make the payment so ordered, and the receipt of the person to whom the payment is ordered to be made shall be a good discharge to such first named person.
EARL BATHURST: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 3 is a purely drafting one, very much like the former ones to which your Lordships have already agreed.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, after ("income") insert ("not being salary, wages, or other remuneration within the meaning of the immediately preceding section").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL: The new subsection which I beg to move, provides useful machinery for working the provisions of Clause 3, and follows the lines indicated for the recovery of sums due under the affiliation attachment order.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, after ("person") insert the following new subsection, viz.:
"(2) If the person by whom the pension or income is payable after being duly ordered to pay the whole or any part thereof to a person named by the Court, at any time fails to pay the amount so ordered or any part thereof to the person named by the Court, the amount in default shall be recoverable summarily by the person to whom the amount is payable under the order of the Court as a civil debt from the person by whom the pension or income is payable: Provided always that the person by whom the pension or income is payable shall not be liable to pay more than the amount of the said pension or income."—(Lord Gorell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Notice of change of address.
4. The person on whom an affiliation order has been made shall give notice of any change of address to the collecting officer, if payment has been ordered to be made by him, and, if he fads to do so without reasonable excuse, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
EARL BATHURST: I move to leave out Clause 4, which is now unnecessary as it has already been inserted as a subsection in Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 21 to 25, leave out Clause 4.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 142.)

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords. I think it will he for the general convenience of your Lordships' House if I say a few words on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill. I am happy to state that the general atmosphere of benevolence which pervaded this House when

1473
we discussed the Second Reading of the Bill has proved sufficiently potent to enable us to look forward to its passage through Committee by general agreement. Amendments have been put down by the noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite, by the noble Earl below the Gangway, and by myself, the cumulative effect of which will be, I hope, to produce a Bill which will not be objected to in any quarter of your Lordships' House. These Amendments, it is only fair to say, should be taken as a whole. They are to some extent, if not interdependent, at any rate dependent upon one another, and they affect several of those subjects on which we were unable to come to an agreement when the Bill was before your Lordships' House last session. They affect the time limit, the areas which will be polled, the proportions which are necessary in order to carry a resolution, and also the regulation of clubs. The general agreement which I hope we reach with regard to these Amendments does not, I fear, extend to the Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Courtney, but which we shall be able to discuss when we come to it. Meanwhile it only remains for me to say that, while I suppose neither on the one side nor on the other should we say that we were satisfied that the Bill is the ideal Bill which, had we individual and sole responsibility, we would have wished to promote, it does on the whole represent a general agreement; and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I should like to express my thanks to noble Lords opposite for their willingness to come to this general agreement this afternoon.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are very grateful on this side of tine House for the kind words which the noble Earl opposite has addressed to us, but I am afraid that I cannot accept altogether the praise which he has been good enough to bestow upon us. He said that this will be a Bill passed with the general approval of your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, I do not think that that is a full and accurate statement of the case. We do not approve of this Bill; we never have approved of it, and we do not approve of it now, and we can undertake no responsibility for it whatever. We do not share with the noble Earl opposite the view that
1474
it is part of the duty of the State to give powers to a locality to decide whether or not people should be allowed to drink in that locality. We have always been opposed to that view. We consider it an infringement of liberty. At the same time we had to consider from the very beginning whether we would assent in principle to the Bill which is now before your Lordships, and we had to consider all the circumstances of the case, among others that there appeared to be a general wish on the part of the people of Scotland that such a Bill should be passed. That we were always conscious of, and there were other circumstances of a general character which made us come to the conclusion that it would be our duty to accept the principle of the Bill; and once having come to that conclusion we did it, as I venture to think, without reserve and with absolute loyalty to the principle of local option which it contains.
Indeed, we had to complain over and over again that His Majesty's Government did not carry their own principle far enough if it was to be adopted at all. In particular we pointed out that the limiting option as it stands in the Bill was a most indefensible proposal looked at from a local option point of view, because what you practically told the people of Scotland in each locality was that they must either decide that licences should be diminished by a quarter of their number or not at all. There was to be no half-way measure between 25 per cent. and nothing. That, we thought, was a very truncated form of local option in respect of a limiting resolution, and we did our best to induce the Government to change that provision, but, as your Lordships are well aware, they absolutely refused to co-operate with us in that endeavour. In the same way with regard to disinterested management. We considered that a Local Options Bill which precluded the people of Scotland from determining in favour of disinterested management was, not complete, and that you had no right whatever to say to the people of Scotland, "You are to be allowed to have this, that, and the other, but the one thing you may possibly want, disinterested management, you are not to be allowed to have." In all these respects we thought that the Government were not really consistent with their own principles and the principle in the Bill. But it was perfectly clear that, however much your

1475
Lordships might desire the principle of disinterested management to be inserted in the Bill, it was not in your power to carry it, and therefore we have thought it right not to insist any longer upon that particular proposal.
In one very important matter we have, I am glad to say, induced the Government to improve the provisions of their Bill in the matter of local option. There is great danger, as the Bill stands at this moment, that when a poll is taken there will be no real certainty that you have got the wishes of the electorate, because a comparatively small poll might determine the particular option to be adopted, whether a limiting option, or a total veto option, or nothing at all. I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl opposite and his colleagues, that in that respect they have made a substantial and important concession, because they have agreed to the raising of the percentage of the electors who must form the majority in order to make the option effective. Where you have 35 per cent. of the electors voting in the majority, there no doubt, if the option is to be carried, you either must have an overwhelming majority or at any rate you must have a very large poll, and in either ease you may be said to have really got at what is the actual opinion of the electors—not merely a technical opinion carried by a relatively few number of votes among an indifferent population, but a real opinion carried by a very large number of votes among an electorate who really desire that that option should be adopted. That is a very important provision which, in consequence of the efforts of your Lordships' House, the Government have consented to insert in the Bill.
Having, as I say, done our best loyally to co-operate in the principle of local option which the Bill contains, we then set ourselves to work to mitigate as far as we could the inevitable hardships which might fall upon individuals through the operation of the Bill, and the first thing we desired to do was to insert a scheme of insurance by which any unfortunate publican who, through no fault of his own, was arbitrarily deprived of the means of getting his livelihood., would still have something to fall back upon. Honestly, I do not believe the Government differed from us in the advantage of that proposal. They used language which leads me to
1476
suppose that in their hearts they entirely agreed that such a safeguard for the individuals affected by the operation of the Bill was in the highest degree called for. When we broke off in the last session of Parliament my noble friend who leads the Opposition invited the Government in the interval which would elapse before the matter would be again before your Lordships to consider whether they could not co-operate with us in constructing a scheme of insurance which would really be suitable. We never pretended that the scheme of insurance which we put forward was necessarily perfect. It is almost impossible for an Opposition to construct a scheme of insurance, a thing of that detail depending upon so many facts which can only be obtained through official sources, which would really be watertight, and we never pretended that our scheme was necessarily perfect. We asked the Government to help us, for we knew that they really agreed with us in their hearts; but they have not stretched forth a finger in all these months which have elapsed and have not in any way helped us to solve this problem. I know that His Majesty's Government have been busy on other matters, but I cannot think that the Scottish Office has been over-weighted. I cannot believe that in that particular Department there was not abundant time and opportunity to think out a reasonable scheme of insurance. But nothing has been done, and now the Bill comes before us again with the Government possessing a hopelessly unformed mind as to how the insurance scheme should be carried out.
I do not feel that we could usefully embark once more upon what may be called an amateur insurance scheme from this side of the House, and therefore we have not thought it well to press it any longer upon your Lordships; but we have done our best, notwithstanding, to induce the Government to mitigate in some degree the hardship which may be thrown on individuals, and in particular they have been good enough to agree to an extension of the time limit. That is a very important matter, because it does give the wretched man who may be threatened time between now and the period when the Bill comes into operation to turn round and make provision for the evil day which may be coming upon him; and if lie is fortunate enough to find an insurance system of a voluntary kind in operation,

1477
which I believe there is in Scotland, under which he may take shelter, he is much more likely to get reasonable terms from that insurance company if he has eight years in which to pay his premiums than if he had only the miserable period which the Government provide in this Bill. Therefore that is a very substantial matter which we have, by the efforts of your Lordships' House, gained on behalf of those who may be put in these very adverse circumstances by the operation of the Bill.
There are only two other matters which the noble Earl mentioned. There is a provision as to clubs and a provision as to areas, which tie noble Earl himself proposes to move. He has been good enough to consult us upon both of these Amendments, and in respect of the Amendment concerning clubs I can say that those of us who sit on this Bench are quite prepared to support that Amendment. We do think that if the Bill is to provide that public-houses in Scotland are not to open before ten o'clock in the morning, it is quite indefensible that clubs, which compete with the public-houses, and which in many cases, I am afraid, are to be placed under a greater condemnation than the public-houses in matters of intemperance, should be enabled to open before the hour at which public-houses are allowed to open and so defeat the policy of the Bill and be unfair to the competing publicans. We therefore think that this is a very reasonable and proper provision. Then there is, lastly, the Amendment as to the areas. Upon that I cannot congratulate the Government on the result of their efforts. It is a matter which is relatively small, and which I do not think it would be proper at this particular moment for me to discuss. I cannot say that we can take any responsibility for the area Amendment. As far as it goes it is an improvement upon the Bill as it stands. The 25,000 instead of the 10,000 is certainly an improvement. That was one of the Amendments which your Lordships pressed on the Government last session, and which, I think owing to some misunderstanding, they did not accept. The other small Amendment, as regards the attachment of particular wards to adjoining wards, is an Amendment dealt out with so niggardly a hand as to be, I am afraid, of comparatively little value, but such as it is we welcome it as a step in the direction we urged upon your Lord-
1478
ships. On the whole, therefore, while we cannot accept any responsibility for the Bill as it stands, or, indeed, for the Bill as it will stand when amended, yet we are glad that by the efforts of your Lordships' House and with the assistance of His Majesty's Government we have been able to mitigate some of the evil provisions in the Bill and make it a better Act of Parliament than it otherwise would have been.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, on this Motion I should like to say a few words, although the point has been alluded to in the short discussion which has taken place this afternoon. I should say first how entirely I share the satisfaction which has been expressed on both sides of the House that an arrangement has been arrived at, even if that arrangement, like many other compromises, is not completely satisfactory to the advanced wing, at all events, of those who represent the two sections of opinion on this subject. The point which I desire to say a word upon is the inability which the Government have found to allowing the principle of disinterested management to find a place among the alternative local options which are given to the inhabitants of a particular district. I do not stand here as an uncompromising advocate of disinterested management of licensed premises as a completely satisfactory arrangement, or one which has yet proved to be practically effective to the extent that many of us had exected and would have desired. But this is quite certain, that the principle will only be reached as a satisfactory one for any area as the outcome of experiment made in other areas. It is one of the admitted modes of bringing about good results on behalf of moderation in temperance. It is one of the modes of doing that which has not yet had an opportunity of full trial, and it can only obtain that opportunity if experiments are allowed in different places.
Now when a Bill is being drawn up which is going to allow to the inhabitants of an area the right to judge for themselves as to the manner in which the liquor traffic shall there be conducted—I am very far, indeed, from saying that I should wish to give a special advantage or privilege or lead in the direction of the principle of disinterested management—but to say

1479
that the principle is one which must be ruled out from the possible options to be exercised by the inhabitants seems to me to be running counter to the opinion of the wisest and most thoughtful amongst temperance reformers both in England and in Scotland. We are certain that there is, while many temperance reformers and many who represent the trade in this matter object to it extremely, a growing opinion on the part of thoughtful people that opportunities ought to be allowed for this experiment to be made. Therefore I cannot help regretting exceedingly that it has been found impossible to allow this opportunity, even if it were to he very little exercised, to be open to those who will have to exercise an option under this Bill. To rule it out now seems to me to be a petty way rather of dealing with a great question. If we are going to allow the opportunity of local option at all, then let those who are going to exercise it, who will many of them be shrewd and thoughtful and deliberate people, have this among other opportunities open to them. I do not go a bit further than that. I am sure of this, that the experiments which have been tried during recent years have shown that in many places disinterested management does work well, and would work much better if it were the result of a vote by those who were exercising a local option. Therefore I regret that it has not been found possible to make that part of the arrangement arrived at.
But having said that, I am not going to urge that for that reason the Bill in its present form is unworthy of acceptance. I am one of those who are generally thankful to take what we can get out of a measure, and therefore I cordially support the Bill in the form which it will, I hope, have attained when it has passed through Committee, with the repeated expression of a regret that it is not made more thorough and more perfect by the retention of this additional option of trying something the advantage of which will only be proved when it is experimented upon in a good many places.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has expressed so ably the opinions which I believe are entertained among those who are specially connected with Scotland in your Lordships' House that it is necessary
1480
only for me to add a word. The noble Earl went a little too far, as the noble Marquess said, when he stated that this was a Bill of which we approved. Of course, we do not approve of the Bill. We have said that from the first, and our reason for accepting a Bill containing the principle of local option is that the Scottish Members have voted for it for a considerable number of years. For that reason I believe many of your Lordships felt that you ought not to interpose an absolute veto to the Bill. This is called a Local Option Bill, but, as the most rev. Primate pointed out, it limits the option. It says to persons residing in a certain district, "You may vote as to how the liquor traffic is to be managed in your district, but you are only to vote upon such issues as we choose to put before you"; and disinterested management is an option which has been peremptorily ruled out of the Bill. There is another objection to the Bill which we on this side, in the considerations in private which have taken place, have agreed to waive. I refer to the provision that if you have a reduction at all it must be 25 per cent. Speaking for myself individually, I should have preferred that the question as to the size of the reduction should be left to the Licensing Court. The Government, however, are very strongly against giving the Licensing Court that authority in the matter, and we do not think that our objection is one which your Lordships ought to insist upon. Then with regard to areas, if we had wished to upset the Bill in an indirect manner we should have left the wards standing in the Bill as originally drawn, because it was evident to everybody that a ward simpliciter was an area which could not possibly be worked in a great many cases. As the noble Marquess said, the change which is proposed is a very slight change in the direction of the Amendment which your Lordships put in the Bill, and which I venture still to think is a better one than the one which the Government propose to insert. At the same time I do not think it is a thing on which your Lordships ought to insist.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Date of Act coming into operation.
1. This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of five years from the first day of June nineteen hundred and twelve.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("live") and insert ("eight").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Poll of electors on resolutions submitted.
2—(1) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demanding a poll under this Act in any area is found by the local authority to have been duly signed, the local authority shall cause a poll of the electors in such area (hereinafter called "a poll") to be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The questions to be submitted to the electors at a poll shall be the adoption in and for such area of (a) a no-change resolution, or (b) a limiting resolution, or (c) a no-licence resolution.
(3) On a poll in any area—

(a) if three-fifths at least in number of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-licence resolution, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if

(b) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a limiting resolution, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if

(c) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-change resolution, or if no other resolution is carried, a no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried; and

any such resolution so carried shall come into force on the twenty-eighth day of May immediately following the taking of the poll.
(4) An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll, but if a no-licence resolution be not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof.
(5) Any such resolution if carried shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("three-fifths") from subsection (3) (a) and insert ("fifty-five per cent."), and leave out ("in number").— (The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("thirty") from subsection (3) (a) and insert ("thirty-five").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("thirty") from subsection (3) (b) and insert ("thirty-five").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved to omit from subsection (4) the words "but if a no-licence resolution be not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof," and to insert the words in his Amendment.
The noble Lord said: The general benevolence which the noble Earl, the First Commissioner of Works, has mentioned as dominating the discussions on this Bill does not appear to have been extended to the small Amendment which I have put on the Paper, an Amendment which, when the Bill was before us last, appeared to command general support. I confess I am at a loss to understand how it is that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill objects to this Amendment. Is is very simple in character. Under the Bill as it stands three options are given to the voter. He has power to vote for no licence and power to vote for a reduction of licences; and if the votes are not sufficient to carry the no-licence resolution then all the votes go to the reduction resolution. I propose that the voter shall have power to indicate on his ballot paper how his votes shall be disposed of if the first vote does not turn out to be effectual. The Amendment gives the voter the power of doing what under the scheme of the Bill is done for him, whether he wishes it or not. I can conceive that there are people up and down Scotland who may be ready to vote, for no licence at all, but who do not care to trouble themselves about the notion of the reduction of licences. That is the attitude of a great many persons who are interested in this question and who say, "We want to get rid of the traffic altogether, but we are not going to take any action in respect of its alteration"; and, of course, they are entitled to that

1483
opinion as much as anybody else is entitled to hold a different one. The possible effect of the action of the Government is that those who want to have no licence at all, if there is not a sufficient number to carry their proposition, will not take any part in the scheme. I confess that I am at a loss to understand the objection which is raised to my Amendment, and I shall listen with some curiosity to the explanation of the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("poll") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("An elector in giving his vote—

"(a) must place on his ballot paper the figure (1) in the space opposite the resolution for which he votes; but

"(b) may in addition place on his ballot paper the figure (2) or the figures (2) and (3) in the spaces opposite the other resolutions in the order of his preference.

"If on a scrutiny it is found that no resolution has been carried in accordance with the conditions above prescribed, the no-licence resolution shall be deemed to have been negatived and the papers marked (1) against such resolution shall be examined and transferred in accordance with the preferences, if any, expressed upon them to the resolution marked (2) on such papers; and if, after this transfer, the limiting resolution is found not to have been carried, the no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried.").—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is, I think, one quite obvious reason why this Amendment, to which His Majesty's Government offered comparatively small opposition when this Bill was last, before your Lordships, should be strenuously resisted on this occasion. When we reached the discussion of this Amendment, on the occasion when the House was last in Committee on this Bill, your Lordships had already inserted an option with regard to disinterested management. Therefore the reason for putting in this transferable vote as suggested by the noble Lord was in so far greater, because there were four options before the voter. It was in that way more reasonable to give him a transferable vote rather than adhere to the scheme in the Bill, by which, on a system of checks and balances, votes might in certain circumstances be transferred from one to another option. As your Lordships know, the scheme of the Bill is that there are three options before the voter, either that things should remain stationary, that there should be no licence at all, or that there should be a reduction. Those who vote for the complete abolition of
1484
licences have their votes transferred to the reduction of licences, supposing there is not a sufficient majority to carry the total abolition. That, I think, is a perfectly watertight, self-contained scheme, which will be readily intelligible to all the voters who take part. Therefore we venture to hope that your Lordships will adhere to the scheme in the Bill.
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: This Amendment seems to us a very reasonable one. Lord Courtney's proposal came before us last year. We then supported it, and, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said a moment ago, it encountered very little opposition from noble Lords opposite. It seemed to us perfectly reasonable that so far as possible we should provide in the Bill that a vote given for a particular option should not be wasted if that particular option should not find favour with the electors. I do not think that the argument of the noble Earl, which was, I understand, to the effect that the complete disappearance of disinterested management diminished the necessity for this extra amount of elasticity, was a very convincing one. The argument which convinces me much more is one of a different description. As the House is aware, there has been a great deal of informal discussion as to the details in this Bill during the last few days, and we have, not without considerable difficulty and not without a good deal of give and take on each side, arrived at something like a general agreement as to the manner in which the Bill might be amended. I must say that, in the face of that agreement and in the face of the objection of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I should be slow to support the importation of any fresh scheme of Amendments, and for that reason alone I should be disposed to discourage the noble Lord from pressing his Amendment on the House.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: In the circumstances I shall, of course, not press my Amendment, but I must utter one word of wonderment at the stolidity that prevents its acceptance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Structural alterations.
6. As from the passing of this Act, and until the first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen, it shall not be competent for a licensing court to order any structural alterations of licensed premises under section forty-two, subsection (3), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Amendment to Clause 6 is to bring that clause into conformity with Clause 1 as amended by your Lordships this afternoon.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("twenty").—(The marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment of law relating to clubs.
8.—(1) Section seventy-eight, subsection (1), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Act of 1903"), shall be amended (a) by substituting the words any the names and addresses of the members" for the words "and the names of the members"; (b) by substituting the words "two members either of the licensing court or of the court of appeal for the county within which such premises are situate, or one member of each of such courts not being the same member, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the court of appeal from the burgh licensing; court or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice, as aforesaid, and one magistrate," for the words "two justices of the peace for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice and one magistrate"; and (c) by adding the words "(1) any such justice of the peace or magistrate may, within ten days front the date on which he signed the certificate, withdraw his name front the certificate granted by him; and (2)," after the words "Provided that."
(2) Section seventy-nine, subsection (2), of the Act of 1903 shall be amended by including amongst those persons who may lodge objections to the grant or renewal of the certificate of registration the procurator fiscal and any person, or the agent of any person, owning or occupying property in the neighbourhood of the club, and by substituting the word "twenty-one" for the word "ten."
(3) Section seventy-nine, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903 shall have effect as if the power conferred thereby on the sheriff (to award expenses against the unsuccessful party where objection has been taken to the grant or renewal of a certificate) included the like power where a summary complaint has been lodged.
(4) Any person or council competent under the Act of 1903 to lodge objections to the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the notice of application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, lodge with the registrar objections to such grant or renewal of the certificate on one or more of the following grounds, and that in addition to the grounds specified in section eighty-one of the Act of 1903:—

(a) That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club; or that there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of exciseable liquors; or

(b) That the club is to be used mainly as a drinking club; or

(c) That the owner of the premises, when the same are not owned by the club or the immediate lessor of the premises, or the officials and committee of management, or governing body, or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of exciseable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom; or

(d) That poisons are habitually admitted or supplied as members without an interval of at least two weeks between their nomination and election as ordinary members or for a subscription of a merely nominal amount; or

(e) That the officials and committee of management or governing body or the members are persons of bad character or who follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence; or

(f) That the club has been or will be used as a resort of criminals or persons of bad character; or

(g) That men or women of bad fame assemble in or frequent the club.

(5) Section eighty-nine of the Act of 1903 shall be read as if the words "an application with the accompanying documents specified in section seventy-eight, subsection (1), of the Act of 1903, any one of" were substituted for the words "an application for registration."
(6) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after paragraph (g) of subsection (4), to add "or (h) That exciseable liquors are sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises between the hours of two in the morning and ten in the morning."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is connected with the grounds upon which the persons concerned—that is to say, the chief constable or a person acting on behalf of the town council or parish council—may lodge an objection against the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration to a club. There are already a number of

1487
grounds specified in Section 81 of the Licensing Act, 1903, and what I move to insert on this occasion is an additional ground of objection which may be taken against the renewal of such a licence. It has been represented that the good effect of the restrictions in this Bill on the sale of intoxicants in public-houses might be nullified unless a somewhat similar restriction was placed upon clubs, and it is for that reason that we propose to put in this Amendment. I have been able to see a list of clubs which in one of the large cities of Scotland do supply drink at an early hour of the morning, and I have very little doubt that the passage of this Amendment will do a good deal to prevent the sale of intoxicants during the hours in question.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, after ("club") insert ("or (h) That exciseable liquors are sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises between the hours of two in the morning and ten in the morning").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD CHANNING: When this Bill was before your Lordships' House last session I had the honour of submitting on behalf of the Corporation of Glasgow their request to have larger powers for dealing with this evil. The Amendment which I then moved did not commend itself to your Lordships. But I wish to express, on behalf of those associated with me then, our gratefulness to the noble Earl and to the House for agreeing upon this Amendment which the noble Earl has just moved, and which does give to the authorities in Scotland some extension, at any rate, of their powers to enable them to indirectly check this serious mischief.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Definitions.
15. The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction have the same respective meanings as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903:
Provided that in this Act—
"Area" means—

(a) in the case of a burgh divided into wards, the population of which burgh
1488
within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the ease of other burghs, the whole burgh: and

(b) in the case of a county, the parish, as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein, and where a parish is situated within two counties, the portion in each county shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a separate parish:

"Burgh" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh:
"County" means a county exclusive of any burgh or part of a burgh comprised therein:
"Certificate" means any certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquors granted in terms of or under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of exciseable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers, or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, or wholesale dealers in spirits, wine, beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, including any reconstruction of, addition to, or extension of such premises on the same or an adjoining site, and any premises in substitution for such premises from which the holder of the licence removes without the production of a certificate authorising, such sale from the licensing court; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred, and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail; and provided, further, that subject to the variation of conditions prescribed by this Act the form of certificate for an inn and hotel or for a restaurant granted under section three of this Act shall be, respectively, the first and second form prescribed by the Sixth Schedule of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903:
"Elector" means, in the case of—

(a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of town councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area; and in the case of—

(b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid: Provided that the supplementary register made up in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen under section twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of

1489
a poll under this Act in the year nineteen hut-Abed and seventeen, and provided, further, that for the purposes of a requisition in the year of a triennial election of county councillors before the register of parish council electors is made up "elector" means any ratepayer within the parish, excluding as aforesaid:

The expression "grant" when used in relation to a certificate includes the grant of a certificate by way of renewal or transfer:
"Local authority" means in the ease of—

(a) a burgh, the town council thereof; and

(b) a county, the county council thereof:

"No-change resolution" means a resolution that the powers and discretion of the licensing court in regard to the grant of certificates or otherwise shall remain unchanged, and in section two as applied to a further poll in any area where a limiting resolution is in force means a continuance resolution.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: All my Amendments to Clause 15 should be read together. Their effect in the first place, to restore the figure of 25,000 as the limit of population under which a burgh will form a single area for the purpose of the Bill. Those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject will remember that that was the limit which was offered, and I think accepted by His Majesty's Government on the last occasion. The second effect will he to allow town councils and burghs to join, if they think proper, small wards to contiguous wards in order to form an area for the purposes of the Act. The first Amendment in paragraph (a) of the definition of "area" is really consequential to the extension of the time limit. The effect of extending the time limit is to make the year 1920 the first year in which a poll can be taken, by which time the census of 1911 will be very much out of date; and it was felt desirable that the population should be ascertained at the date when the local option part of the Bill comes into operation with a greater degree of accuracy than the figures of 1911 would afford. Therefore, we provide that the population shall be "as ascertained in the year 1919 for the purposes of this Act in manner approved by the Secretary for Scotland," which in practice means that the Secretary for Scotland will be guided by the figures provided by the Registrar-General at the date specified.
Amendment moved—
Page 11 line 5, leave out from ("thereof") to ("is") in line 6, and insert ("as ascertained in
1490
the year nineteen hundred and nineteen for the purposes of this Act in manner approved by the Secretary for Scotland").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty-live").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, after ("burgh") insert ("unless, where the population of any ward of such burgh as so ascertained is less than four thousand, the town council by resolution passed on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, determine that such ward shall for the purposes of this Act be combined with a ward contiguous thereto") and after ("and") insert ("(b)").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The only objection I have to this Amendment is that it is such a very little one. If the noble Earl could have hardened his heart and enlarged the figure of 4,000 into 12,000 it would have given me a great deal of satisfaction. But apparently he is obdurate, and I suppose I must be content with this small crumb of comfort.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next two Amendments are merely to bring this clause into conformity with Clause 1 and the extension of the time limit agreed to by your Lordships in that clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("nineteen").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("twenty").—(the Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and schedules agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 143.)

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this Bill which I have the honour of presenting for Second Reading has the advantage of being an agreed Bill. I think I should explain that the. Intermediate Education Board for Ireland appointed in 1878 hold annual examinations of students and grant exhibitions and certificates to successful students. They are also empowered to reward the managers of the schools to which the successful students belong. There are several age categories to those examinations. There was an age category for children between twelve and fourteen. That was adopted in 1892, but it was discontinued last year because it was felt that, it was injurious to such young children to submit them to competitive examination. Clause 1 of this Bill is a statutory prohibition to give effect to the discontinuance of the examination of children under fourteen. But a difficulty arises. According to the present Statute it is only on the result of examinations that awards can be paid to the school managers, and subsection (2) of this clause provides that an inspection of the intermediate schools may take the place of examination, and if the Board are satisfied, on this inspection, that the teachers have earned some share of the fund intended to promote intermediate education they can, on that inspection and without examination, reward the managers accordingly. That is practically all that the Bill contains, with the exception of power to make rules, and things of that kind. I understand that my noble friend Lord MacDonnell wishes to move an Amendment in Committee with the object of including quite a different matter. He desires to make a provision enabling the Board to apply to the teachers a new scale of pensions, and also to draw out a scheme by which those entering the service will see exactly what they will become entitled to by way of pension at the end of their service. We take no objection to that Amendment on principle, and, subject to seeing it on the Paper, I do not think there will be any difficulty in our accepting it. But I would like to add this word of warning to my noble
1492
friend. This is an agreed Bill, and if it is amended in this House it is conceivable —although I do not think it is at all likely—that objection may be taken to the Amendment when the Bill goes back to another place. I do not think the risk is great, but so far as we are concerned we are prepared to take that risk, because the object which my noble friend has in view is one with which we fully Concur.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SUDAN LOAN BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next (The Lord Strachie). (No. 144.)

THE ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
LORD WYNFORD LORD WYNFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the reorganisation of the batteries of Royal Field Artillery proposed in Army Order No. 220 of 1913 cannot be postponed to enable the matter to be further considered?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to occupy more than a few moments in asking the Question which is in my name on the Paper. I should like to express regret at the continued absence of Lord Herschell and at. the reasons therefor, and I am also sorry that Lord Lucas, who dealt with similar Questions that I asked about three weeks ago, is also unable to be in his place this afternoon. There is, perhaps, an apology due from me for the short notice which I have given of this Question, and I would not have adopted this procedure but for the urgency of the matter. Your Lordships will readily understand that as these proposed changes are to take place on the 1st of August and to-day is the 29th of July the matter is an urgent one. There is little time available for His Majesty's Government to carry out the suggestion —which I hope they will do—that the operation of the Order should be postponed until the matter has received further consideration.
I do not think that His Majesty's Government have fully realised the deep feeling which the proposed changes have aroused, not only amongst officers who are serving in the batteries concerned but amongst retired officers who still have at heart the interests of these batteries. It is perfectly true, as Lord Lucas stated on the last occasion, that the Royal Field Artillery has to be treated as a whole and will always so be treated. But it is true, also, that batteries have always been ordered to keep their own individual records, and in this respect a battery has always been treated, as I sincerely hope it will continue to be treated, as a unit. It would be interesting to know whether any representations have been made on this matter by the batteries concerned. In reply to a Question in another place, it was stated that this decision had been arrived at by a Committee of distinguished Artillery officers. I cannot conceive that any committee of Artillery officers would have agreed to the changes contemplated in this Order if they had had a perfectly free hand and had all the facts before them. It is the ease, I believe, that the noble and gallant. Field-Marshal the Colonel of the Royal Regiment of Artillery was never consulted before the Army Order was issued.
Were there any urgent necessity for these changes to be carried out as contemplated I do not think anything could be said, but to my mind no argument has been advanced in their favour. Where is the difficulty in carrying out such a transfer as I suggested on the last occasion when I raised this question—such a procedure as transferring a percentage, say, of the officers of the battery staff and some of the older soldiers sufficient to maintain the continuity of these batteries. It is really absurd to say that there will be any but a very trifling and temporary loss of efficiency by carrying out such a transfer as I have indicated, because these transfers take place every year when batteries go out to India and when they return home on leave. No battery goes out complete; only a nucleus of the battery goes out and only a nucleus comes home, and these transfers take place without any serious detriment to the batteries themselves. It is only five weeks ago that this Army Order first saw the light, and I think I am right in saying
1494
that these batteries only realised the proposed changes when the Army Order was published in the newspapers. In those circumstances postponement of the operation of the Order does not seem unreasonable, more particularly as some of these batteries have, I believe, not completed their annual training, and others are still in camp The annual reliefs are not, as a rule, carried out until later in the autumn, and consequently it is difficult to understand the undue haste with which these changes are being made. I hope, therefore, that. His Majesty's Government will be inclined to postpone the operation of this Army Order for the present.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, may I, from my experience as a Royal Field Artillery officer, add a word to the protest which has fallen from my noble friend to-night and also on the previous occasion about three weeks ago. I am certain that what he said is perfectly true, and that His Majesty's Government or the War Office can have a very small idea of the strong feeling which exists in the Royal Field Artillery at the present moment with regard to these contemplated changes. It may be said that it is only a matter of sentiment, but, after all, sentiment plays a very great part in the prestige of the British Artily and in maintaining that esprit de corps which is one of the great features of the Army, whether it exists in regiments or in batteries. Lord Lucas, when he answered for the War Office the other day, gave utterance to the expression which has been alluded to by my noble friend. Lord Lucas said that the Royal Regiment of Artillery had to be treated as a whole. A remark of that sort can only come from one who knows nothing about the Royal Regiment of Artillery or the spirit which animates it or the various batteries in it, or he would not have spoken so lightly of or absolutely ignored the undoubted esprit de corps which does exist in these batteries and which is a great feature to be encouraged. Why should you not treat a battery in the same way as you treat a regiment— as an entity? A nice row there would be if you told the Gordon Highlanders, for example, to exchange records with the 42nd and to call themselves the Black Watch and vice versa. Just because a battery is a smaller entity and is merged into a larger one some people seem to

1495
think that all questions of sentiment and esprit de corps can be absolutely ignored. There are many distinguished batteries whose records are most carefully preserved and whose names are historical. I venture to assert that that feeling ought to be encouraged, instead of which a practice seems to have arisen of recent years of constant juggling with the batteries of Artillery whenever a little money is to be saved or the taxpayer led to believe that the Army is made stronger by the abolition of certain units of the Army. A state of unrest is created thereby which is most discouraging to persons commanding batteries, and practically to all officers of the Royal Artillery; and I am sure it would do some of the authorities good if they were to hear the remarks made by regimental officers as to the manner in which the feelings of batteries are systematically ignored, as is the case on the present occasion. I cannot protest too strongly against the procedure which is about to be taken.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down spoke of the strong feeling entertained by Army officers against the proposed change. It is no new experience that there should be strong feelings entertained by people who do not understand the reasons which have prompted proposed changes of various kinds, and this is not the first time that His Majesty's Government have encountered such feelings. The batteries of the Royal Regiment of Artillery have been referred to, and it has been said that we should extend the same consideration to batteries as to regiments of the Line and of the Guards. Such a proposition is an extraordinary one. There is one Royal Regiment of Artillery, a unit with distinguished service and traditions, and I may observe that it is not proposed to interfere with a single one of those units which has this distinguished service and these traditions. But even if it were proposed to do so, the Royal Regiment of Artillery stands in a totally different position from that of regiments of the Line. It is itself the unit, and is composed of batteries the officers of which are constantly changing. Officers and men alike pass from battery to battery in a very different way from what has been the case in respect of regiments. The continuity is not the same because the organisation is a different organisation.
1496
What I have said is only by way of preface. Even if the reasons for the sentiment which has been spoken of were much more real than they are, I still would not for a moment admit that such considerations should be allowed to stand in the way of this most necessary change. The noble Lord who put the Question has been for a long time now away from actual experience of Artillery service, and I am afraid he does not appreciate the changes which have taken place as time has gone on and which render it necessary to carry out the proposed reorganisation in order to make the batteries efficient.
I will tell your Lordships why the changes are essential. First of all, the main consideration in modern Artillery organisation in this country is to supply the Expeditionary Force with such an Artillery organisation as may raise it to the highest point of perfection to which we can get it. That is vitally important, and dominates every other consideration. To the Expeditionary Force there are now added seventy-two batteries, which contain among them eighteen howitzer batteries and which form the Artillery organisation of the Expeditionary Force. Sir John French and the General Staff came to the conclusion that, although the number of batteries is sufficient and the guns are as efficient and their numbers as high in proportion as those of most other Powers, still the Artillery organisation ought to be still further perfected by increasing the number of men on the war establishment. In order to bring about that increase the Artillery are divided, under the new Army Order, into three sections. There are, first, the seventy-two batteries of which I have spoken; secondly, there will be fifteen unallotted which will be available for various purposes in war; and, thirdly, there will be what are called the reserve batteries, with which the question we are now considering is intimately connected. The reserve batteries are what are called the training batteries. Some time ago we found that it was absolutely necessary to provide for the systematic training of the recruits for the Artillery, and that it was necessary to train recruits of two kinds—Regular recruits and Special Reserve recruits. Special Reserve recruits were brought in because modern ammunition and quick-firing guns had largely increased the amount of ammunition which had to be taken into action, and the consequence

1497
was that larger ammunition trains were necessary. There has recently come a considerable change in regard to transport. Mechanical transport of ammunition has largely taken the place of horse transport, and the result is that although you have to carry more ammunition than you had to do before you are able to manage your mechanical transport with fewer men, but it is necessary that those men should be highly trained, and the General Staff have come, quite rightly, to the conclusion that for the purposes of Artillery the ammunition column should be manned by Regulars and the whole of the Artillery should consist of Regulars. We do not require the enormous number of men that used to be required in the days of horse transport, and that opens up a possibility of reducing the numbers of the training brigades.
The training brigades will have the same number of guns, but they will consist of two batteries instead of three to a brigade. The result will be that these batteries will train their men systematically, and it is desirable that they should form a permanent part of the organisation. At present the system is indiscriminate. These training brigades are necessarily reduced in size because of the smaller number of men now required, and they will, as I have said, consist of two batteries instead of three. It has been possible for it to happen that the oldest and most efficient battery in the service has been sent for a term to do the duty of a training brigade. That is not thought desirable. The conclusion of the General staff has been this, that we should set apart 72 batteries for the Expeditionary Force, and that the batteries which are to form training brigades should be batteries which are always engaged in training. I think it is a dozen batteries which are to be taken for that purpose. In considering what batteries should go to the Expeditionary Force, what is the obvious consideration? The first is that you should take the best batteries in the Army. The consequence is we are taking 72 batteries and including those with the largest war service and the greatest traditions.
When you come to the training brigades it is necessary to allocate particular batteries to do that work permanently. What is the obvious consideration which comes to mind with regard to the training brigades?
1498
It is that you should take the junior batteries which have the least war tradition. For that purpose you take, under this Army Order, 12 batteries which have come into existence since the war, batteries which have seen no war service, which have never been out of the country, and they will form in future these training brigades. If that is so, there will be no hardship on either the officers or the men. The officers and non-commissioned officers in these batteries will do the same sort of term as they do at the present time. No officer or non-commissioned officer remains with the training brigade for more than two years, and the men will circulate too. They will he moved about, and the only difference will be that instead of a battery which is at the height of war training being suddenly sent mechanically to take its place in the training brigades, the work of the training brigades will be done by batteries permanently allocated to the purpose—junior batteries with no war service or traditions or any of the things of which we have heard so much. At the present time there are certain batteries in the training brigades which are to be allocated to the Expeditionary Force because they are batteries with great traditions. Certain other batteries are to take their place, and what is being done is really in substance a change of units. There is nothing in the change of numbers. There is no change in personnel; it is simply the transfer of certain numbers and recruits and batteries.
The whole controversy really comes to this, What constitutes the identity of a battery? I do not know what the identity will consist of, particularly if it has no traditions. The two noble Lords who have spoken and who; I think, have not come much in contact with the experience of Artillery officers of modern days, have said nothing about the desire there is among our best Artillerymen to be allocated to the Expeditionary Force. That is the sentiment that has been all powerful. Those officers who have had most to do with war in the past and whose batteries have the greatest tradition claim, and claim with good reason, that their batteries should be attached to the Expeditionary Force. It is in order to bring that about and to secure to the Force the best batteries, the training being assigned to the junior batteries, that the step we propose is about to be taken. One of the noble Lords who

1499
spoke referred to the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who takes so much interest in the Artillery. I can tell the noble Lord that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal is quite cognisant of what is going on and has been taking part in discussions with regard to it. I do not know whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposal, but I think the fact of his not being here to-day, although he has been in consultation recently on the subject, shows that he is conscious of the impossibility of carrying out this necessary reform in an efficent manner except by the plan which the Adjutant-General, acting with the General Staff, has approved and adopted. I have had the advantage of seeing the Adjutant-General and some of the officers of the General Staff within the last few hours and of going closely into this matter, and I am satisfied that the way proposed is the only way in which the change can be carried out. It is not a question of saving money or of reducing men. There is no reduction. Any reductions that are to take place are for the purpose of getting more men for the establishment. The step we are taking is a step forward in the direction of furnishing the Expeditionary Force with the most perfect Artillery equipment that can be given to it, and it would be a very unfortunate thing if your Lordships were to oppose this change in the interests of a venerable tradition which has no application or relation to the modern problems with which we are faced.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope noble Lords have been able to follow the nebulous statement of the noble and learned Viscount, but I think it would be difficult for anybody to piece together the beginning and the end of his speech. He told us at the end that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal was cognisant of what was taking place, and, I understood him to say, was satisfied that no other solution was possible. The noble and learned Viscount gave that fact away at the very beginning of his speech, for he said these changes were made because the 72 batteries of the Expeditionary Force required to be brought up to a higher establishment and that it was necessary to break up some of the lower batteries in order to give them that establishment. That gives the whole case away. The noble and learned Viscount placed a number of these batteries on the lower establishment as training units. My noble friends and the noble and gallant
1500
Field-Marshal protested against that policy, and at the time we adumbrated what has since taken place, that it was only a step to the breaking up of those batteries and the reducing of them. The only thing we did not expect was that they would have broken up older batteries which had records and preserved younger batteries which have not records. That is a clear statement of what has taken place. It cannot be challenged that what the noble and learned Viscount begs us to believe to be inevitable is the result of having refused to bring up to establishment by recruiting those batteries which require to be brought up to establishment. The whole of the rest of the statement of the noble and learned Viscount falls to the ground. The real fact remains that you want some hundreds of men more for the Artillery, and you have got them by reducing, not the youngest batteries, but the batteries which have some of the oldest traditions. I quite admit that these old batteries are not watertight compartments like regiments of Infantry or Cavalry, but at the same time, as both Lord Wynford and Lord Denbigh have shown, they have cherished traditions which are very much touched by what I think is the altogether unnecessary action of His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has totally misunderstood what I endeavoured to convey. The numbers to be added are not got by the reduction of these batteries, but by the reduction of the three Horse Artillery batteries. The reductions that I spoke of in the organisation of the training brigades depend entirely on this, that you have not got to train as many recruits now, owing to mechanical transport, as you had to do in the days of horse transport.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: That is still worse. I undertake to predict that within five years the General Staff will come again, through the Secretary of State, to the House of Commons and ask for the replacement of these batteries.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has said that the Artillery are one unit. That is perfectly true, but there are traditions which attach to each separate battery and brigade. Those traditions have been spoken of as venerable, but they really are not so very venerable. I joined the Artillery 55 years ago—I think before my noble

1501
and learned friend was born—and they were all battalions and companies then. I remember, when it was proposed to change them into batteries and brigades, all the officers were saying, "What do we know about batteries and brigades? We belong, for instance, to the old 6th company, third battalion"; and there was great, opposition to the change. I remember being consulted some years afterwards about the change back again to the old battalions and companies. Then it was said, "Why do we want battalions and companies? We belong to the old batteries and brigades." Of course, it is a very important thing, this esprit de corps, but the illustration I have given I think shows how very rapidly a new esprit de corps is created. Therefore I do not think that the mere question of esprit de corps is sufficient to condemn this proposal. I do not know anything about the merits of the question, but I think that the esprit de corps argument alone is not sufficient to condemn the proposal.
LORD WYNFORD: I only rise to correct an impression that the noble Earl has conveyed to your Lordships. There is no doubt that batteries have been changed from companies, but in no single instance has there been such a sweeping change as is contemplated in the present proposal. On former occasions the battery has always remained, although the name has been changed. The nucleus of the battery has always remained and carried on the records of the old battery, but in this case the records have been sent away from the battery, and, the officers and men who are left have to take over new records which they have no interest in I should like also to refer to what fell from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. With all due respect, I hope I may claim to have kept myself in touch with the regiment with which I did sixteen years' service, and I have also kept myself in touch with all the reorganisation that has been going on. The noble and learned Viscount spoke of the anxiety of the battery commander to form part of the Expeditionary Force. I should like to ask him, Are these batteries to be allocated as reserve batteries? I maintain that they have a prior claim to these newly-formed batteries.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be fatal to have a three-battery organisation on the eve of going to war.
LORD WYNFORD: I am coming to that. I suggest that these transfers should take place when you are carrying out this organisation. I never intended that there should be a general change round year after year. All I ask is that sonic nucleus of these batteries should be transferred on this Occasion and on this occasion only, with the records with which they have been brought up; and I can only hope from the concluding words of the noble and learned Viscount that the matter is still receiving consideration, and that, although the time is short, we may hope that some solution may be arrived at.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no desire to intervene in this discussion, but I feel bound in the interests of the order of the House to draw attention to the fact that there is no Motion on the Paper, and that the whole of the recent observations of the noble Lord have been altogether out of order. The practice, I am afraid, is becoming somewhat common of putting down Questions which are in order, and of making speeches upon them which are altogether out of order. I feel sure that my noble and learned friend will agree that this discussion ought now to close.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I am not without reproach in this matter. I should like, however, to say a word in reply to the noble Lord, who asked me a question as to whether the transfer of a nucleus was receiving consideration. I may tell him that what the nucleus will be, and whether it will do any good, is a question which is puzzling the authorities more than any other question, and I can only say to him that it is one which is still under consideration.

PAYMENT OF RATES IN IRELAND.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW THE EARL OF WICKLOW rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to recent cases in the Irish Courts in which it has been decided that justices, on the application of a rate collector against ratepayers in arrears, are bound, if the application is sustained, to issue a distress warrant directed to the Police for the collection of the rates, and whether His Majesty's Government consider it desirable that under such circumstances the rate collector

1503
should receive poundage upon rates which are collected by the Police, and if not, whether they will take steps to prevent him from doing so; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am afraid it is necessary for me to say a few words in explanation of the Question I have put on the Paper. My object in putting it is to raise the question of rate collectors in Ireland appealing to the Royal Irish Constabulary to collect for them rates which are in arrear. A rate collector in Ireland some of whose ratepayers are in arrear can do one of two things. He can either proceed on his own warrant and levy distress, or he can summon the defaulters and obtain a warrant from the Petty Sessional Court. In Ireland it has been the practice of the magistrates to address these warrants to the rate collector himself, who has then acted as his own bailiff and executed the warrants; but some genius has lately discovered that it is possible to compel the Police to execute that duty. It is a duty which the Police dislike; it is an unpleasant duty, and one, moreover, for which they are not paid, and for which the rate collector is paid. In some cases where application has been made to have warrants directed to the Police, the magistrates have agreed to do so. In one case the Police appealed, and it was held by the Court, very naturally I think, that the Police were obliged to obey the orders of the Bench. In another case the magistrates refused to direct the warrants to the Police, but insisted on directing them to the rate collector, who, in their view, was the proper person to discharge the duty. The rate collector appealed from that decision, and the Court held that the magistrates were obliged, if they were asked to do so, to direct warrants to the Police. That is now the law of the land, and there is no way of getting out of it.
We have, therefore, this position of affairs, that the rate collector, having secured all the rates he can easily get in—rates that he gets by return of post—can then sit down and smoke his pipe comfortably while the Police carry out the more onerous part of his duties for him. I do not think it would be very easy to alter the law on the subject, because that
1504
would probably entail an Act of Parliament, but what I suggest to His Majesty's Government is that the Local Government Board might make a regulation to provide that where rates are collected for the rate collector by the Police the rate collector should not receive poundage upon those rates. I think that would have the desired effect. It may possibly be contended that if the rate collectors understand that they are not to get poundage upon rates which they have to collect by distress, it may make them slack in the collection of rates, and that they might not take so much trouble about them as they otherwise would, and that therefore the collection would suffer. But I think that the Local Government Board and the rating authority between them ought to be perfectly competent to decide what rates are recoverable and what are not. The effect of such a regulation as I suggest would be to make a rate collector particularly careful to do his utmost to get the rates in without litigation, and to make full use of the warrant with which he is already provided. I hope His Majesty's Government may see some force in my argument, and I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to recent cases in the Irish Courts in which it has been decided that justices, on the application of a rate collector against ratepayers in arrears, are bound, if the application is sustained, to issue a distress warrant directed to the Police for the collection of the rates.—(The Earl of Wicklow.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, it is a little difficult to understand quite what point the noble Earl wishes to make. I do not quite understand whether he is condemning the whole system of poundage under which the rate collector is paid a certain percentage on the rates collected, or whether he thinks that poundage payment should be confined to the cases where the rate collector actually collects the rate. The latter is, I think, his point. But surely the noble Earl must see that the cases which give the collector trouble are just the cases which sometimes result in his having to appeal for a warrant and issue a distress. The noble Earl says, "Why does he not act on his own warrant?" It is almost certain in

1505
many districts in Ireland that if the collector were to attempt to distrain on his own warrant he would be met by something in the nature of physical force, and he could not, in fact, carry out his warrant without some Police support. It seems, therefore, that it would be very much better to leave him the discretion of applying to the magistrates for Police support than to throw it entirely on his own shoulders.
Then there is another point. If the collector in the exercise of his discretion appeals for a Police warrant and throws the onus of collection on the Police force, tie defaulter is not infrequently influenced by the fear of the costs which the legal proceedings would involve, and it does not infrequently happen that that is enough to make him pay up. I do not see how the noble Earl can suggest that a rate collector should be deprived of the ordinary and natural Police support which is open to any private individual. Take the collection of rent in a case where the rent is not forthcoming and a default occurs. The private individual has the right of getting a distress warrant and of appealing to the Police to assist him in carrying it out. If a private individual can get that assistance for the collection of private rents, surely it ought to be open to the rate collector, who is collecting public money, to receive similar support. I quite agree that in all those cases where the rate collector can collect the money he should do it, and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that he does not. It is only where he has reason to fear that he will not be able to collect it without the display of civil force that he comes to the Court. The noble Earl will see that it is impossible to introduce the change he suggests unless the whole system of poundage is given up, and I do not think he would go so far as to suggest that. I think, therefore, that the present practice based on the existing state of the law is the only one open to meet this particular case.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he knows of a single instance where the collection of rates has been resisted by physical force in Ireland. One of the points which the noble Lord made is a very strong argument on my side. He
1506
said that the fear of the costs of the Court proceedings sometimes induced defaulting ratepayers to pay up. I think it is a very great hardship, particularly on small ratepayers who owe quite a small sum, that they should be mulcted in costs simply because the rate collector prefers to apply to the Court and have the amount collected by the Police when he could perfectly readily collect the amount himself on his own warrant.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LOANS TO PERSIA.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, on behalf of Lord Curzon I beg to move for the Return that stands in his name on the Paper. The words have been slightly altered, but I understand that the alteration has been agreed to by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a Return of all outstanding loans, grants, or advances of money made to the Persian Government, severally or jointly, by His Majesty's Government or by the Government of India.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes; the noble Earl, who is not now in the House, desired to amend his Return by making it apply to all loans made by the British or the Indian Government to Persia which may now be outstanding, instead of limiting it to those which have been made since the year 1907. I see no objection to altering the form of the Return. Speaking from recollection, I think that no advances were made between the year 1907 and the year 1912, to which we alluded yesterday; and also, speaking from recollection, I cannot say whether there are or are not any other liabilities on which interest is still paid. In any case I see no objection to granting the Return in the form suggested.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.