Sitting of 11 June 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL.
Sir H. CARLILE: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of the distributive traders of the city of St. Albans and district against the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (1893) Amendment Bill, praying that this honourable House will be pleased to cause a full inquiry to be made into the privileges already enjoyed by industrial co-operative societies as compared with the private distributive traders of the country.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords],
Great Northern Railway Bill,
Nottingham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Railless Traction Bill,
Order [14th April] that the Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Railless Traction Bill be committed, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Railway Bills (Group 3),
Sir LUKE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
West Bromwich Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B);
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group D),
Mr. HERBERT CRAIG reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5095 to 5097 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PERSIA (No. 1, 1913).
Copy presented of Further Correspondence affecting the Affairs of Persia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
Copy presented of Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the conditions imposed by Section 15 (5) (iii) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, on the supply of medicines to insured persons. Vol. I. Report, Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the Establishment and Constitution of an Association for the county of Carmarthen, under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (DEATH SENTENCES).
Address for "Return from the India Office showing the number of Death Sentences passed in India during 1911, giving each province separately; the number of these sentences subsequently modified by the highest judicial authority; and the number commuted by the Government."—[Mr. Keir Hardie.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.

Herne Bay Gas and Electricity Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate, with Amendments, the Acts relating to the port and harbours of Greenock; to re-constitute and re-incorporate the trustees; to authorise the construction of new works; to provide for the adjustment of the finances of the trust; to provide for a guarantee by the Corporation of Greenock; and for other purposes." [Greenock Port and Harbours Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of and method of election to the Ipswich Dock Commission; to confer further powers on the commissioners; to authorise them to construct works and acquire lands, to raise additional money, and to create stock; and for other purposes." [Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Ebbw Vale to construct additional waterwcrks; and for other purposes." [Ebbw Vale Water Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Midland Railway Company to make further contributions to the Superannuation Fund established under The Midland
1594
Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1867; and for other purposes." [Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company to raise additional capital." [Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords.]
MacColl's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
That they communicate the Minutes of Evidence taken upon the Second Reading of MacColl's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.
Greenock Port and Harbours Bill [Lords],
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords],
Ebbw Vale Water Bill [Lords],
Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords],
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY.

    DOCKYARD WAGES.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the reason why the repeated requests of the skilled and ordinary labourers employed in the dockyards for an interview on the subject of their wages and conditions of labour have been refused; whether he is aware that three applications have been made within the last few months and have all been refused; and whether a deputation will be received from the men who form the greatest number employed in the dockyards?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Petitions couched in identical terms were received from each of the dockyards from the labourers and skilled labourers. I gave a very great deal of time to the consideration of these petitions, and at each of the yards I heard the men's representatives at great length. For instance, at each of the three large yards, if I remember rightly, I devoted something like three hours to hearing their case. I may further state that a skilled labourer

    1595
    formed a member of a deputation which I received at the House of Commons on the 1st April. All the facts in connection with the case of the skilled and ordinary labourers having thus been placed before the Board in the fullest possible manner, I did not consider that any useful purpose would be served by the proposed further deputation.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Why is a distinction made between receiving representatives from the skilled trade unions and the labourers employed in the dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no distinction whatever.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When may the labourers expect to receive an answer to their deputation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It will be issued without delay. As far as wages are concerned, generally speaking, the matter has been settled.

    NAVAL POSITION (ENGLAND AND GERMANY).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked (1) whether Germany will possess twenty-six completed "Dreadnoughts" in the spring of 1916; whether forty-two ships will be required to give us a 60 per cent. superiority over them; whether, in fact, the number of completed "Dreadnoughts" provided for by Great Britain at that date will be thirty-nine only; and, in view of the fact that Colonial or Dominion ships do not contribute towards this standard, what steps are proposed in order that the necessary standard may be maintained; and (2) whether the current naval programme was framed with the intention of giving Great Britain, apart from Colonial or Dominion warships, a total of thirty-nine completed "Dreadnoughts" in the spring of 1916 as compared with Germany's twenty-six; whether this programme was based on the assumption that three additional ships would be built at the cost of the Dominion of Canada; and, in view of the fact that action on the part of the Dominion is now indefinitely postponed, to what extent it is proposed to increase the completed "Dreadnought" strength of Great Britain in the spring of 1916?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): These questions were fully discussed on the Estimates, and I have nothing to add to the statements which I then made to the Committee of the Whole House.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how the acceleration of the three contract battleships of the current programme will affect the naval position as between Great Britain and Germany in the spring of 1916?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: These matters had better be reserved for the discussions on Vote 8.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will Vote 8 be taken?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Some time in July. The date does not rest with me nor does is rest wholly with the Government.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the acceleration of the programme add one single battleship to our number at the end of 1916?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It depends on the date in 1916. The effect of every acceleration is necessarily only temporary and will pass away in a certain number of months. The effect of the action that is now being taken is to keep the position open for six or seven months.

    ITALIAN AND AUSTRIAN PROGRAMMES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of any increase in the Italian and Austrian programmes of heavy ship construction over and above their published programmes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION (ACCELERATION).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether, in view of the rejection of the Canadian Naval Aid. Bill, the Board of Admiralty propose to provide for the margins of naval strength which are absolutely required for the whole world protection of the British Empire for the autumn and winter of 1915 and in the spring of 1916 by merely advancing by a few months the construction of three ships of the current British programme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not desire to make any further statement on the subject at the present time.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on the Shipbuilding Vote?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, certainly. I owe it to the House—both sides of the House—to make a very full statement on this subject, and give good reasons for the action taken.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of the situation created by the rejection of the Canadian Naval Aid Bill, the Government have determined to advance the construction of the three contract ships of this year's programme, he can guarantee that there shall be no delay in their completion; whether he is aware that His Majesty's ship "Conqueror," His Majesty's ship "Princess Royal," and His Majesty's ship "Audacious," were not completed until seven months after the allotted date; that His Majesty's ship "New Zealand" was not completed until three months after the allotted date; and that His Majesty's ship "Centurion" and His Majesty's ship "Australia" were not completed until two months after the allotted date?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second part in the negative—I cannot give such a guarantee—and to the third, in the affirmative. There have been delays as stated by the Noble Lord.

    ACCIDENT TO SUBMARINE E5.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information respecting the accident to submarine E 5 off the Welsh Coast; whether the man killed was married; and, if so, what pension will be awarded his wife and children (if any), and when will these pensions be given?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The cause of the accident has not yet been definitely determined, but it is known that an explosion took place in the crank chamber of the starboard engine, the released burning gases passing forward in the boat and injuring a large number of the crew. The floor plating and portions of the crank chamber were violently displaced, causing serious injury to officers and men in the vicinity. The submarine is undamaged in the hull, and could proceed to sea at once under her own motive power. The widow is eligible for a Greenwich Hospital Pension of 9s. per week, with an allowance of 2s. per week for each of her children (if any) from the date of Greenall's death. She has been asked to furnish information as to her circumstances, and as soon as she supplies it the pension will be awarded. I may add that since I came into the House I have received with great regret the following telegram
    1598
    from the Captain-Superintendent of Pembroke Dock: "I greatly regret to report the death of Engineer-Commander Walter Moore, following on a severe operation after injury in the explosion on Submarine E 5."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of awarding the widow and children some higher pension than the ordinary pension?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am debarred by the scale which the House has approved in former times.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of altering the scale?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a general question which does not arise on the particular case.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: What method is taken to exhaust the explosive gases in the vessel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not go into the details of submarine construction, but every conceivable measure to prevent accidents is taken by the officers and men on board these vessels. They know that their lives depend upon the care with which dangerous instruments are handled, and there is a committee of officers of the submarine service, that is to say, of those who go down in submarines constantly, which sits to assist the First Sea Lord at the Admiralty in all matters connected with the design and construction of submarines in order that the views of those who have to serve in the vessels should constantly be brought before the designing branch.

    ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
    Mr. COOPERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what principle he selects the merchant vessels that are to be fitted with 4.7 inch guns; upon what grounds such steamers as the "La Correntina," "La Negra," "La Rosarina," and "El Uruguayo" have been selected in preference to first-class mail and passenger steamers such as those of the Lam-port and Holt line, the Royal Mail D type of boats, and the Nelson line of steamers, all of which carry the same class of cargo, from and to the same ports; if the Admiralty have examined the strength of construction and stiffening of the selected vessels in the vicinity of the gun plat-

    1599
    forms; and if he will say what steps are taken to make certain that the structure of the vessels in the vicinity of the gun platforms would be able to bear the strain if the guns were fired for any length of time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Admiralty in the selection of the ships to which guns have been allotted have given priority to those most likely to attract attack from armed enemy merchant cruisers. The steamers mentioned by the hon. Member have not been excluded and will, if their owners concur, be considered for arming with those of other steamship lines. All ships selected for arming are inspected, and, where necessary, strengthened to stand the strain of firing.
    Mr. KING: Is there to be any limit of numbers to the ships which will be thus equipped?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I suppose there is a limit to everything, but we are a good long way from reaching that limit. I certainly hope a considerable number of ships will be equipped before the end of the year.
    Mr. LEE: Is it not a fact that these ships are equipped for defence only and not for attack?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely these ships will be quite valueless for the purpose of attacking armed vessels of any kind. What they are serviceable for is to defend themselves against the attack of other vessels of their own standing.

    China and Tibet.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the present relations between China and Tibet; if he can say whether he has any official information that a great Chinese expedition is on the march against Tibet; that reconquest is considered to be an essential preliminary to bargaining; and that the Chinese mean to put forth great efforts to crush the Tibetans; and, if so, whether he will adhere to his first declared intention not to acknowledge the Republic of China till the question of China's failure to adhere to the terms of the Tibetan agreement has been satisfactorily settled?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): With regard to the facts asked for by the hon. and gallant Member, I can add
    1600
    nothing to the reply given to him on the 27th of last month. No doubt there is force in what the hon. and gallant Member urges in the last part of his question, but the recognition of the Chinese Republic now forms the subject of international consultation, and it would be undesirable that I should give an undertaking that might prevent His Majesty's Government from acting with other Powers when the time comes.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the Foreign Office has any information regarding the supposed attack upon Tibet?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir.

    Egypt (Arrest of Mrs. Tripet).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statements of Mrs. Tripet, a Swiss subject, who was arrested at Alexandria on 7th May in connection with the Adamovitz affair, in which she complains of being shut up all night in a room with three or four men, who slept on long tables; whether such treatment is the result of the Capitulations or is the custom under Egyptian law; whether, if the latter, he will cause representations to be made to the Egyptian Government to have the attention of the Ministry of the Interior called to the matter; and whether, if the former, he will take steps to invite the Powers concerned in the Capitulations to have the decencies of life observed in their treatment of women whilst under arrest in Egypt?
    Mr. ACLAND:: I have no information on the subject. If any complaints are made it is through the Swiss Government, if a Swiss subject is involved, that they should be received.
    Mr. MORRELL:: May I ask whether a Capitulatory Power has any right to make an arrest of a foreign subject as was done in this case, and whether the expense is charged to the Egyptian Government?
    Mr. ACLAND: Copies of the Capitulations have been placed in the Library, and I think the facts have been fairly fully stated. Under the Capitulations a Power can cause the Egyptian police to arrest subjects of that Power—and they are then subject to the laws of that country.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Foreign Office see to it that the police in Egypt are made to conform to the laws of decency?
    Mr. ACLAND: We do not control the police in Egypt. Egypt is not a part of the British Dominions in which we can interfere in that matter.
    Mr. MORRELL: May I ask if the Egyptian Government made any inquiry as to the charge against Mrs. Tripet?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir; they have no power to do that under the Capitulations.
    Mr. MORRELL: Has my hon. Friend read the Capitulations.
    Mr. ACLAND: Certainly.

    British Indians in South Africa.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the protests of British-Indians in South Africa and to those of public meetings in India respecting the new Immigration Bill now before the Union Parliament of South Africa; whether he is aware that such protests state that the Bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will have the effect of renewing in an acute form the conflict between the South African Governments and the British-Indian community; and whether, having regard to the views thus expressed, the Imperial Government will request the Union Government whether anything can yet be done, consistent with the rights of a self-governing Dominion, to meet either partially or wholly the desire of British-Indian subjects resident in South Africa on this matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am aware that protests have been made in South Africa, and no doubt in India, against the Bill as introduced. It has been somewhat modified since it was introduced. His Majesty's Government have had prolonged correspondence with the Union Government in regard to this legislation. Ministers have shown every desire to meet the anxiety of His Majesty's Government that the racial inequality of the Indian before the law should be removed. Although it is not to be hoped that the Bill will give complete satisfaction, His Majesty's Government feel that the abolition of this differentiation in regard to immigration is a valuable concession to Indian feeling.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that this Bill is generally supported by the trade unions in South Africa?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I should not like to say that off-hand.

    West Africa (Concessions).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what restrictions exist as regards the number of concessions which may be granted or validated in respect of one firm or person or group of interests in each of the West African Colonies and Protectorates?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The existing restrictions apply to the total area of concessions tenable by one person or firm, and not to the number of concessions so tenable. The rules as to areas vary in the different adminstrations according to the nature of the concessions, whether mining, agricultural, etc.

    Rhodesia (Pedigree Stock).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Rhodesia contributes to the mail subsidy to the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Company, Limited; and if there is an arrangement that pedigree stock intended for territory within the Union of South Africa has to be carried free of freight, and if this privilege is extended to Rhodesia?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I understand that Rhodesia contributes to the mail subsidy, but the contract covers other matters than postal matters, such as the carriage of pedigree stock, and any provisions in respect of these are confined to the Union.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that this is a most vital matter to British settlers there, and will he allow me to make representations to him on behalf of the Rhodesian Farmers' Association?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will be glad to receive representations from any well-authorised person.
    Mr. TOUCHE: May I ask why Rhodesia is excluded from the privilege as to pedigree stock?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I believe it was a matter of negotiation at the time the contract was being arranged.

    Ceylon Temperance Organisations.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any general order has been issued by the Government of Ceylon prohibiting any public servant or administrative officer from taking part in the work of

    1603
    temperance organisations; and, if so, whether such order was approved by him before issue?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The only information I possess at present is that derived from the newspapers. The order was not submitted to, or approved, by me before its issue. I am waiting a dispatch from the Government of Ceylon on the subject.

    Zanzibar.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to make any announcemnt as to the future provision for the administration of Zanzibar?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Governor of British East Africa is about to proceed to Zanzibar to examine and report to me as to the future administration, and pending the receipt and consideration of his report I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. FELL: Shall we have Papers on the subject?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; I think so.

    Masai.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position in regard to the proposed transfer of the Masai from the Northern Reserve?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The transfer has been completed.
    Sir W. BYLES: There has been a great deal in the newspapers about this. May I ask whether the Colonial Secretary has any correspondence or information on the subject which he can give to the House?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that there is anything worth laying on the Table at all.
    Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Is it not a fact that recently the High Court of British East Africa granted an injunction against the Attorney-General that the transfer should not be completed while the action brought by certain Masai was pending, and is it not also a fact that an appeal has been, or will be, lodged against the decision of the Court that it has no power to try this action?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It is a fact that an injunction was issued by the Court, but it was issued three days after the whole transfer had been completed. As to the
    1604
    appeal, I have heard that one may be lodged, but I know nothing officially of that. If it is being lodged I should not wish to discuss it, the matter being sub judice.
    Mr. HARVEY: In view of these facts, will the right hon. Gentleman lay further Papers as to the action of the Government in completing the transfer when it was known that, at the time such transfer was being made an injunction was being sought against it; and does he not consider this to be a grave matter of public interest which demands further information?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The transfer was going on months ago. It was only the conclusion of the transfer that was taking place when the action was raised.
    Mr. HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been continual protests against the transfer, and that this is the first opportunity there has been for its being brought before the Law Courts, and will he reconsider his decision as to the publication of Papers?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think there are any Papers which can be published.

    Northern Nigeria Bauchi Railway.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is meant by the statement in the last number of the "Colonial Office Journal" that the gauge of the Northern Nigeria Bauchi Railway is to be gradually increased?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The conversion of this light line of 2ft. 6in. gauge to 3ft. 6in., the gauge of the main line, was contemplated from the first as an undertaking which it would be desirable to carry out when the necessary funds were available. The success of the line has been so remarkable that I felt justified in approving the immediate conversion of about half of the line to the wider gauge. As the bridges and culverts were constructed to carry the wider gauge, the operation will, I am informed, be a simple one.

    "Colonial Office Journal."
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the "Colonial Office Journal" is edited under Colonial Office authority; are its views to be taken as representing the opinions of the Secretary of State; and is it conducted at a profit or a loss?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir. The "Colonial Office Journal" was started with the permission of one of my predecessors in office; but it has never been an official publication, and on every copy it is stated that the Secretary of State is in no way responsible for the opinions expressed in it. I have no information as to whether it is conducted at a profit or a loss.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power over the journal, or is it a wholly irresponsible publication so far as the Government are concerned?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no power in the matter.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that advertisements are collected for the journal on the ground that it is a Colonial Office publication?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That is a question which I cannot answer without notice.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (CIVIL SERVICE).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the decision to defer until the occasion arises the question whether, in the event of mobilisation, Civil Service members of the Territorial Force will continue to receive Civil Service rates of pay has a deterrent effect on recruiting; and is there no prospect of the question being finally determined before the occasion arises?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The reply to both questions is in the negative.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not make representations to the Treasury on the subject?
    Colonel SEELY: I have said that the reply is in the negative. That would seem to relieve me from taking the course suggested by the hon. Member.

    QUEEN ALEXANDRA'S NURSES (DANCING).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, looking at the fact that Queen Alexandra's Nurses are not allowed to dance in their own spare time, they are under martial law in the same sense as soldiers are; and, if not, will he say under what authority this order was made?
    Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part of the question that the order was made under the authority of the Army Council.
    Captain FABER: Can such an order be made on the authority of the Army Council?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir.
    Captain FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under common law it cannot possibly be done—that nobody can be prevented in this way from doing what they like in their own time?
    Colonel SEELY: I am satisfied that we have acted within our legal rights throughout, and I think the policy is one which will commend itself to the House generally. It has been in force for some time.

    RIFLE CLUBS.
    Mr. MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that many young men are deterred from joining rifle clubs by the heavy cost of ammunition, he will consider the possibility of reducing the charge of £4 5s. per thousand rounds which is made for the same?
    Colonel SEELY: The question of granting ammunition at reduced prices to rifle clubs is under consideration.
    Earl WINTERTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman in considering the matter take into consideration that the charge now made by the War Office is higher than that made by private firms?
    Colonel SEELY: This is an important question, and it is being looked into at the present time.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it, will be settled, seeing that the members of clubs are losing the best weather at the present time?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not think this depends upon weather. We are considering what steps it is best to take. Of course, a great deal of shooting takes place in winter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in supposing that it only takes place in summer.

    Public Trustee (Ireland).
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the difficulties are connected with the Consolidated Fund which may prevent the introduction of the Bill to establish a Public Trustee for Ireland this Session by the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In view of the changes contemplated under the Government of Ireland Bill, it would be impracticable to impose on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom a contingent charge in respect of the guarantee necessary for the working of a Public Trustee Department in Ireland. Such a charge, were a Public Trustee for Ireland subsequently appointed, must necessarily be borne by the Irish Consolidated Fund.

    Development Commission.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that several recent decisions of the Development Commissioners have been regarded by practical agriculturists and their various organisations throughout the country with disfavour; and whether, seeing that there is only one practical agriculturist at present on the Commission and that he, although possessing valuable experience in respect of small holdings and agricultural co-operation in Wales, professes no practical knowledge of extensive farming in other parts of Great Britain, he will consider the advisability, as most applications for Grants are in respect of agricultural development, of strengthening the Commission by the addition thereto of at least two practical agriculturists of wide knowledge and experience?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware to what decisions of the Development Commissioners the hon. Member refers in the first part of his question. As regards the second part, I cannot agree that the Commission includes only one member with a practical knowledge of agriculture, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which feels very strongly on the subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.

    Horses (Export).
    Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the traffic in worn-out horses for abroad still continues; whether diseased and lame horses still have to walk for nearly half an hour from the place of landing to the nearest abattoir at Rotterdam; and whether the law concerning the traffic in these horses is carried out with stringency or is merely nominal?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The export of horses from this country is regulated by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, and the provisions of that Act are strictly enforced by the Board. Every horse, unless shipped with a special permit of the Board, is examined by a veterinary inspector and is not allowed to be shipped unless he certifies that it can be conveyed and disembarked without cruelty. I am informed that horses shipped for slaughter at Rotterdam walk or are conveyed some distance from the landing-place to the public abattoir.
    Captain FABER: Is it a fact that the price of 20,000 of these horses last year for slaughter abroad was under £5 apiece?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I believe that that was about the figure. It was certainly a very small sum.

    Beef Trust (South America).
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has taken any action with regard to the American Beef Trust in South America in order to safeguard the meat supply of this country; whether his attention has been called to the fact that five companies have had to close their establishments to avoid further losses; and if he could say what the Government has done?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I am aware of the apprehensions caused to British firms engaged in the Argentine meat trade by the recent action of the United States firms similarly engaged, but I have no information as, to the closing down of any establishments. I understand that the matter is under the consideration of the Argentine Government, who are primarily concerned, and any well-considered steps which they may take with the object of maintaining an unrestricted

    1609
    trade will be viewed by His Majesty's Government with sympathy and satisfaction.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department confer with the representatives of those firms who compose the meat trade in America in order that some practical action may be taken?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If these trades approach the Board, of course their representations will be fully considered.

    Imperial Institute (Contracts).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Department has any control over contracts executed at the Imperial Institute; if so, whether he is aware that a complaint has been made that the Army and Navy Auxiliary Stores, at present carrying out a contract at the Imperial Institute, are not paying the proper rates of wages to the polishers and cabinet makers; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to securing observance of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): No contract is being carried out for the Office of Works by the Army and Navy Auxiliary Stores at the Imperial Institute.

    Westminster Hall.
    Mr. KINGasked what amount of reconstruction or repairs has been found needed for the roof of Westminster Hall, what the duration of the work will be, and what is the estimated cost?
    Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner is not yet in a position to say what amount of repair or reconstruction may be necessary. The examination and survey in detail which is proceeding will take another two or three months.
    Mr. MORRELL: Has the attention of the hon. Member been called to the great inconvenience caused to many Members by blocking the door at the Members' entrance to Westminster Hall, and could he not make arrangements to allow Members to pass through?
    Mr. W. BENN: That was considered, and it was thought desirable, in the interests of Members as well as of others, while these things were going on to have them all thoroughly closed.

    Sanatorium Schemes (Grants).
    Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board what is the total amount of the Grant that was made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a letter, dated 31st July, 1912, to Mr. Hobhouse which has already been distributed to local authorities by the Local Government Board; and what is the total which it is estimated will have to be paid by the Treasury to local authorities through the Local Government Board ultimately when treatment is provided for all persons in England who are neither insured nor dependants?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The sum of £125,000 included in the Estimates for this purpose has not yet been voted, so that it has not yet been possible to make any Grants to local authorities on maintenance account in aid of their sanatorium schemes. It is not practicable at present to make any reliable estimate of the possible ultimate charge.
    Mr. ASTORasked how much of the' capital Grant made available by the Finance Act, 1911, for providing institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis has already been spent in England on providing new tuberculosis dispensaries and new sanatoria and hospitals for the treatment of tuberculous patients, respectively; and the names of those authorities who have already spent this money?
    Mr. BURNS: Capital Grants amounting to £11,491 have been made to authorities in England in aid of expenditure already incurred in providing tuberculosis dispensaries and sanatoria for the treatment of tuberculosis. These Grants have been paid to the county council of Devon, and the corporations of Birkenhead, Birmingham, Eastbourne, and Leicester. Further Grants, amounting to £36,900, have been promised to various authorities in aid of expenditure already incurred or now being incurred, and large capital Grants have also been promised to more than fifty other authorities whose schemes have been approved by the Board. The whole capital Grant available for England has been provisionally allocated to counties and county boroughs on the basis of population.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What is the total amount available for England?
    Mr. BURNS: £1,116,000.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Do I understand that out of that £1,116,000 only £11,000 has actually been spent?
    Mr. BURNS: But it must not be assumed that that is what it is going to be very shortly. They are practically total Grants committing the Treasury and the Local Government Board to further expenditure which is to be incurred.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: When is it likely that the rest of the money will be spent, so that those who are seeking sanatorium treatment may get it?
    Mr. BURNS: Now that the schemes for buildings are well in hand a great deal of money will have to come from this large sum. So far as the actual patients are concerned there has not yet proved to be any deficiency of accommodation.

    Starvation (Deaths).
    Mr. HILLSasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what was the number of deaths in 1912 in England and Wales and how many in the Metropolis upon which a coroner's jury returned a verdict of death from starvation or death accelerated by privation; when he will publish that Return; how many of the like deaths took place in the first three months of the present year; how many of such persons dying in 1912 and how many of those dying in the first three months of 1913 were in receipt of old age pensions; what steps, if any, the Local Government Board and their inspectors have taken to reduce the number; and whether the Local Government Board will in future send down inspectors to see the relieving officers and guardians and thoroughly to investigate the cases and endeavour to find remedies?
    Mr. BURNS: Ninety-eight cases were reported by coroners in 1912, of which forty were Metropolitan and fifty-eight provincial cases. Three of the ninety-eight persons were old age pensioners. The annual Return will be published in due course, but all the necessary particulars are not yet available. So far information of four cases occurring in 1913 has been received, one of which is the case of an old age pensioner. Whenever it appears to be necessary the inspectors of the Local Government Board confer with the Poor Law authority and their officers upon these cases, but there is no reason to doubt that Poor Law
    1612
    authorities are fully alive to the importance of the matter.
    Mr. CROOKS: What is the use of sending the inspector after the death? Would not it be better that the inspector should go and liven up some of these relieving officers, and save time?
    Mr. BURNS: No one knows better than the hon. Member that inspectors do the very thing which he suggests, and in certain unions with which the hon. Member is not unfamiliar, the suggestion of the inspector has on more than one occasion been resented.

    Relieving Officers as Registrars.
    Mr. HILLSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will in future decline to sanction the appointment of relieving officers as registrars of deaths, so that, in case of death arising from destitution or of death of an inmate of a workhouse, the certificate for burial may not be obtained from a Poor Law official but from someone outside the Poor Law?
    Mr. BURNS: The combination of the two offices of relieving officer and of registrar of births and deaths frequently occurs and is found to be convenient. In the latter capacity the official deals with all births and deaths in the population. There seems to be no sufficient reason for discontinuing the present practice.

    King's Bench Judges.
    Mr. MARTINasked the Attorney-General what judges of the King's Bench Division sat in Court on every Saturday during the calendar year 1912, except during vacation; and what extra work each judge did who did not so sit?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I have had a tabulated statement prepared which will be circulated with the Votes and gives the desired information. I refer my hon. and learned Friend also to pages 122 to 132, both inclusive, of the Minutes of Evidence given before the Royal Commission on Delay in the King's Bench Division, which contains a detailed statement of the sittings of the judges at nisi prius for the year 1912.

    Elementary Schools (Head Teachers).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to take any further steps to remove the

    1613
    impression, created amongst education authorities by paragraph 9 of Circular 709, that in future only those teachers who have had a college course should be appointed to headships?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): No evidence has up to the present been laid before me which would justify the belief that local education authorities are under any misapprehension as to the eligibility of all teachers certificated before the 1st August, 1910, to be head teachers of public elementary schools, whether they had received a college training or not. They are, as I have repeatedly said, eligible for such posts and will continue to be eligible, and I believe many of them are well qualified by both attainment and experience to fill such posts, but I should not be justified in telling local education authoriteis that they should not take college training into account in selecting individual teachers for promotion.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Why will not the right hon. Gentleman give the same publicity to the withdrawal as he has given to the circular? Is he aware that great misapprehension exists among the teachers?
    Mr. PEASE: I have had no evidence of any misapprehension such as the hon. Member has more than once alluded to. But, at any rate, if there be any misapprehension, I am quite sure this question and answer will prove satisfactory.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Education whether, as there is now adequate college accommodation, the Board of Education will abolish the acting teachers' examination and, when so doing, declare that all then holding the certificate are eligible for the position of head teacher?
    Mr. PEASE: In view of the great difficulty of finding recruits for the teaching profession it is impossible for me to close this avenue to the grade of certificated teachers.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make the declaration referred to in the question?
    Mr. PEASE: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper.

    Railway Rates.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the statutory maxima for rail-
    1614
    way rates fixed under The Railways and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, take into account none of the modern improvements and economies effected by the railway companies and are therefore no guide as to what charges are now reasonable in the case of a great national monopoly; and whether, seeing that the levying of such maximum rates would in the case of nearly all agricultural produce leave no margin of profit to the producer, the Government will, in view of the threatened increase of railway rates to, or almost to, the amount of such maxima, introduce legislation forthwith with the object of reducing such maxima to a level more defensible from the standpoint of modern conditions?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think the hon. Member overlooks the fact that the expense of railway working has advanced considerably since the passing of the Act of 1888. The percentage of expenditure to total receipts in that year was 56, and in 1912 it was 63. The whole question of the railway position is receiving the careful attention of His Majesty's Government, but my right hon. Friend fears that he cannot undertake to introduce legislation at present with the object suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the railway companies are representing to all the traders that the fact of the rates not yet having been advanced to the maxima is sufficient justification for the intended increase?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: What the companies say to the traders does not preclude the traders from appealing to the Railway Commission.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the names of those approved societies in Scotland one of which an, agricultural labourer should join if he wishes to receive any sickness benefit, under the National Insurance Act, in the event of his being taken ill after completing one hour's work on a Wednesday morning and being unable, through illness, to resume work until the following Monday morning?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 9th June, the decision of a

    1615
    society in cases of the character to which he refers depends upon the society's rules and the circumstances of the individual case. I am, therefore, unable to give a general indication of the view which would be taken by societies in these cases. In any case, I have always refused, I believe with the approval of the House, to recommend any special approved societies for insured persons to join.
    Major HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that a farm labourer may be ill for five whole days and not be entitled to one penny of sick benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I have made an admission of any sort or description.
    Major HOPE: I ask whether a farm labourer may be ill for some days without receiving a single penny of benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must either put a question down or explain it in some other fashion.
    Major HOPE: I asked this question previously, and I was told to put it down in a definite form, and I have now done so.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member will give me an example, I shall be very glad to deal with it.

    ASSISTANT CLERKS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state at what age an assistant clerk who has been recommended for promotion is exempted from further examination on the ground of age?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no age fixed. In treating each case the Commissioners take all the circumstances into account, and if the candidate has reached the age of forty the Commissioners give his case special consideration.

    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked how many of the 20,500 voluntary contributors under the National Insurance Act were already insured in friendly societies before the Act came into operation; and how many of the 20,500 are women?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant
    1616
    Member for Chelmsford. Five thousand six hundred of the 20,500 voluntary contributors are women.

    INSURANCE BOOKS (WINDOW ENVELOPES).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has yet decided to permit the use of window envelopes for the return of insurance books and cards under the National Insurance Act; and whether the books and cards can in future be of the same size?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I sympathise with the desire for window envelopes; but I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on the subject. The matter dealt with in the second part of the question is under consideration.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmaster-General has objected on the ground of the difficulty of stamping by machinery, and will he see whether he cannot assist the Postmaster-General in getting over a really trifling difficulty?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot take that upon myself, but I am very anxious that something should be done.

    SETTLING SCHEMES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what progress has been made in settling schemes under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act; whether all the friendly societies have yet had schemes approved; and whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can state the amount of the reserves released by such schemes?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There have been 9,506 provisional schemes made under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act, and 1,355 final schemes have been confirmed by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Under these schemes a reduction of deficits amounting to £101,823 has been made, and funds amounting to £3,299 have been set free.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the amount of the reserves could be released by this scheme?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the reserves could have been released if the members of friendly societies had chosen that method of dealing with the funds. Instead of that the great majority have chosen to double the insurance.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the reserves necessary to give medical benefit to insured persons over the age of seventy are being accumulated; and, if so, whether by the insurance committees or by the approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in answer to the hon. Member on the 24th July, 1912, the actuarial calculations allow for the accumulation of the necessary reserve to provide medical benefit for surviving members of approved societies entitled to it after the age of seventy. The reserve is, therefore, being accumulated out of the ordinary contributions received by societies in respect of their insured members.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon Gentleman answer the question whether the reserves accumulated are in the hands of the Insurance Commissioners or in the hands of the approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a further question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: But does not the right hon. Gentleman see that it is on the Paper?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I regret it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down to-morrow.

    COLLECTING SOCIETIES.
    Mr. FELLasked if the Secretary to the Treasury's attention has been called to the payments being made to the agents and collectors of the collecting societies and to the sums which are being retained by those societies for further benefits under the National Insurance Act; and if he will say if those arrangements were contemplated by the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have stated on several occasions, the Commissioners have no power to interfere in the rates of remuneration paid to agents for such work as they do for the National Insurance Act in addition to their normal work, as this is a matter to be settled between themselves and the societies employing them. The funds of a society are held for the benefit of the members, to whose advantage any saving due to economical administration accrues.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if the Commissioners have taken any action in any case
    1618
    where the remuneration of these agents must be manifestly inaccurate, and where very large sums are retained for further benefits? Have the Commissioners any power over that?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They have for administrative purposes. When a society works within the limit, any savings they make goes to the members as a whole.

    Development Fund.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state collectively, by way of verbal reply or in the form of a printed Return, the nature of the various objects in respect of which Grants have been made out of the Development Fund since the commencement of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, the several sums which have been promised or applied in connection with such objects, respectively, and the further objects in respect of which applications are now being considered by the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The information desired by the hon. Member will, I understand, be given in the Annual Report of the Development Commissioners for the year 1912–13, which is now in course of preparation and will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    LORD GREY.
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to take criminal proceedings against Lord Grey and the publisher and printers of the "Times" newspaper in connection with the seditious letter from Lord Grey, published in that paper on Monday last, containing a plain incitement to crime; and will the Government suppress the "Times"?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government do not propose to take any proceedings in the matter.

    PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF IRELAND.
    Viscount WOLMERasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been drawn to a resolution passed at a meeting of the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland in Belfast on the 6th instant, declaring that the opposition of the Church to Home Rule continues as determined and unyielding as in the years

    1619
    1886 and 1893, and recording its firm conviction that the present Home Rule Bill is a measure that would inflict incalculable injury on our country and our Church; whether he is aware that this resolution was carried by 921 votes to 43; that it was brought forward in response to a memorial signed by more than 130,000 laymen over sixteen years of age; and whether he intends to allow this resolution to influence his action in regard to the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen what has appeared on this subject in the public Press. As I have already stated, the Government are prepared to give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to any proposals which may be brought forward for the insertion of further safeguards in the Bill.

    Civil Service (Royal Commission).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service may be expected?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that at present no date can be named by the Royal Commission.

    Absent Voters.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked whether the Prime Minister's attention has been called to the provision in force during the recent election in the Commonwealth of Australia whereby absent voters are enabled to record their votes; and whether, considering the number of voters in the United Kingdom habitually absent from home on account of their calling, he will consider the advisability of introducing a similar provision when next the Government is considering a franchise Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I will certainly consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, but I see many practical difficulties in the proposal.

    Private Bill Legislation.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury will state for the last financial year the amount of fees received in connection with the promotion of Private Bill legislation and the passing of such legislation through Parliament; under what head of Treasury receipts is this source of revenue included; and whether the fees are so fixed as to produce revenue
    1620
    or are only intended to cover the expenses of the Private Bill Office?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The amount received was as follows: House of Lords, £22,680; House of Commons, £18,822 10s. Subject to certain deductions for pensions in the case of the House of Lords, fees are appropriated in aid of the Votes for the House of Lords and House of Commons offices, respectively, as shown on the Estimates. I believe the fees were fixed to cover a due proportion of the total cost of the Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. KING: Am I right in supposing that every time a private Bill is objected to a fee is payable for putting it down again, and that therefore hon. Members in objecting to private Bills are increasing the revenue of the country?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It goes to the credit of the country.

    Mental Deficiency Bills.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in consequence of the statement on the 6th instant by the President of the Board of Education at the conference of the Association of Education Committees that the Grant for mentally defective children educable in special classes or schools would be increased from £4 4s. to £6 and also that for residential schools more substantial Grants would be forthcoming, and having regard to the fact that even originally the Mental Deficiency Bills would have imposed a proportionately heavier financial burden on Scottish than on English local education authorities, he has any similar announcement to make on behalf of the Scottish Education Department?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Yes, Sir. The matter has not escaped my attention, and is under consideration.
    Major HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there will be an equivalent Grant for Scotland in proportion to the extra Grant to England?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot say positively for the moment.
    Mr. WHYTE: Seeing that he was unable to state the number of defectives who would probably come under the Bill, on what basis can the right hon. Gentleman make appeal to the Treasury for money for Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think I can answer that question. The circumstances in relation to Scotland are being considered.

    Moray Firth (Protection of Fishing Nets).
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has received information as to the loss of nets suffered by the fishermen of Lossiemouth, Hopeman, and Burghead, during the recent cod-fishing season owing to trawlers dragging the trawl through the nets; whether he is aware that the loss amounts to a large sum in itself, and also has crippled some of the fishermen so that they have been unable to continue the fishing; and whether he will draw the attention of the Fishery Board to the matter, and ask them to have a cruiser always on duty in the Moray Firth from 15th January to 15th April, with a view to the protection of the nets and informing trawlers of their existence and location?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that a considerable sum has been lost in this way. The Fishery Board are considering the whole question and trying to make arrangements to meet the difficulties of the case. There was a cruiser in the Moray Firth during the past season.
    Sir A. WILLIAMS0N: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what part of the Moray Firth this cruiser was, because it was not observed by the fishermen?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed the cruiser was in the Moray Firth practically for weeks.
    Mr. MUNRO: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct that a cruiser be also sent to the Caithness coast, where similar incidents have taken place?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes; but I think I ought to say I am not at all sure that the cruiser could meet the difficulty.

    Emigration from Scotland.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that 3,000 more emigrants sailed from the Clyde on 7th June; whether he has observed that a similar number have been leaving Glasgow for weeks past; and whether he has any information as to the localities from which those people are emigrating and their occupations?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The passenger lists for 7th June have not yet been received at the Board of Trade, but I am aware that for some time past the number of emigrants from Scotland has been considerable. The Report on Emigration and Immigration in 1912, which will contain information as to occupations of emigrants, is now in a forward state of preparation.

    Camberwell House.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to statements regarding the treatment of Mrs. Haynes in Camberwell House, alleging that whilst there certain procedure necessary for her classification as a lunatic was gone through in an improper manner; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have seen statements in the Press respecting this case. I had previously received representations to the same effect, and I had referred them to the Commissioners in Lunacy, who reported that they had made careful inquiry into the complaints, and were satisfied that there were no good grounds for them.

    Karl Graves (Release).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Arngaard Karl Graves, who was sentenced in July last in Edinburgh for espionage, is still undergoing imprisonment; what is his nationality; if he is imprisoned still; whether it is intended to release him; if no longer in prison when and why he was released; and whether he has been, or will be, deported at the end of his term of imprisonment as an undesirable alien?
    Captain FABERasked whether Karl Graves, who was convicted of being a spy, has been released; and whether he can give any information about the case?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Graves was released in December last. It would not be in accordance with precedent to state reasons for the exercise of the prerogative. I have no official knowledge as to his nationality. The sentence did not include any recommendation in favour of deportation.
    Mr. KING: Was he released because of his state of health?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe he was in bad health.
    Mr. KING: Were any conditions imposed upon him at the time of his release?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think I dealt with that in my answer.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman not be a little explicit? We are very anxious to have the truth of this matter. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give me an explicit answer as to whether any conditions were imposed I will put the question down again.

    Army Horses (Foreign Purchases in Ireland).
    Mr. STAINERasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what foreign commissions have been buying horses, suitable for Army purposes, in Ireland this year; and if he can say how many have been bought and the average price paid for them?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his similar question on the 5th instant.
    Mr. STANIER: Are these horses being bought through local agents?
    Mr. RUSSELL: They are bought, I believe, by representatives of the foreign Governments.
    Mr. STANIER: Not Commissioners?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No, not that we know of.

    Sale of Land (Stamp Duty).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether certificates of the redemption value of advances partly repaid are refused to solicitors by the Irish Land Commission on application; and, if so, will he represent to the Commissioners that the statutory amount of Stamp Duty payable on a conveyance of lands which have been purchased cannot be ascertained without very considerable difficulty and the risk of paying excessive Stamp Duty?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Where holdings liable to the payment of land purchase annuities are conveyed on sale, Stamp Duty is, under the Stamp Act, charged on the conveyance, not only on the consideration money paid by the transferee, but also on the outstanding portion of any advance made to the pur-
    1624
    chasing tenant. The Land Commission always furnishes certificates showing the amount of the outstanding advance so as to enable these deeds to be properly stamped, and are not aware that any difficulties have arisen of the nature implied in the question.
    Mr. KELLY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that when several sales of the annuity have been paid the amount of the outstanding advance is less than the original advance?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No doubt as a debt is paid off it gradually diminishes. At the time of the transaction itself Stamp Duty has to be paid under the general law of the country. It is not peculiar to Ireland. It has to be paid not only on the consideration money, but also on the amount actually outstanding on the advance.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is invariably the amount of the original advance that the Land Commission return as the amount of the outstanding annuity?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of that.

    Estate Duty Assessment.
    Colonel BURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will expedite the assessing of Estate Duty in the case of Eliza Huxham, deceased, D.B. 1,005,185–13; whether he is aware that there are seven beneficiaries, who are poor working people; that they are unable to get the balance of their shares owing to the failure of the Valuation Department to report, and that the balance has been lying idle since 25th March last; and will he explain why there should be this unnecessary delay in a small property of £525 when full particulars of the sale of the property were delivered to Somerset House on 11th March, 1913?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have made inquiries concerning this case, and find that it will be settled at once.
    Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause matters to be expedited in Somerset House because the solicitors, members of his own profession, get a very bad name for delay which is no fault of theirs; and which is considered to be running up costs at the client's expense?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did make a statement about that the other day. Undoubtedly there has been some delay in that respect.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    SOLICITORS BILL.
    "To amend the Solicitors Acts, 1839 to 1906." Presented by Mr. HILLS; supported by Sir Joseph Larmor; to be read a second time upon Monday, 7th July, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
    HOPS (No. 2) BILL.
    "To prohibit the use of hop substitutes in brewing." Presented by Mr. RUNCIMAN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

FINANCE BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [2nd June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add the words "this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which continues the system of taxing the food of the people, whereby the unfair proportion of taxation imposed upon the poorer classes is aggravated, Instead of abolishing such injurious and indefensible forms of taxation and raising the necessary revenue by increasing the direct taxes on unearned incomes and large estates."—[Mr. Snowden.]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: In rising to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I desire to associate myself with the very full statement of the case presented by both the Mover and the Seconder. I think I ought to say that the position they take up in this matter has the cordial and unanimous approval of all the Members on these benches. I think I might go further and say that the position presented to the House is a position that finds approval not only amongst the ranks of the organised workers of this country, but amongst a large section of the people in no way associated with our movement. It seems to me it could scarcely be otherwise in view of the fact that we continue
1636
to levy our taxation in a way that is unequal in its incidence and most oppressive in its effects. In our judgment the entire system should be changed because it stands condemned not only on account of the departure, as we have often been reminded, from the principle of ability to pay, but it makes the question of the physical well-being and social and economic necessity matters of secondary consideration. We hold that the position should, be entirely reversed. The Amendment has been opposed from two entirely different points of view. There is the position represented by the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), and there is the more serious position the view expressed in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I desire, in the first place, to deal with the position taken up by the Noble Lord. He ventured upon the futile and unconvincing task of alleging the motives behind the Labour party in moving their Amendment. He told the House that it is a window-dressing and electioneering Motion, and he described the Debate as an organised sham fight such as the Labour party dearly loved. The only attempt to justify this imputation of motive was that the Labour party had in previous Debates refused to play the game of the Opposition. In a sentence, the complaint amounts to this—that we on these benches, who desire the abolition of all forms of indirect taxation, failed to assist into power those who are prepared not to abolish but to increase indirect taxation, including the taxes on food. It is always dangerous for one party to impute motives to another, but as the question of motive has been raised against us by the Noble Lord it may not be out of place to say that, whenever the Opposition proposed the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar they were more concerned about providing electoral opportunities for their party than about relieving the poor of oppressive taxation.
This statement finds substantial support in the policy pursued by the Unionist party when in office. Let me remind the House of their position. From 1900 to 1904 the Unionist party added £6,000,000 a year to the taxation on sugar, £4,000,000 on tea. £2,000,000 on tobacco, £2,700,000 on beer and spirits; in all, £14,700,000 to the taxation which falls heaviest upon the working classes. I find from a Return granted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A.

1637
Chamberlain), when he was at the Treasury, to Mr. Gibson Bowles, that the revenue derived from duties on certain articles of food and drink, excluding spirits, beer, tea, and wine, amounted in 1895 to £748,000, or 4½d. per head of the population. But when the Unionist party left office in 1905, the amount totalled up to £7,144,915, or 3s. 4d. per head of the population. With such a record as this, is it not surprising that the Noble Lord and his Friends should expect us to replace those who may at present chastise us with whips by those who would proceed to chastise us with scorpions? Before leaving the point of view represented by the Noble Lord, I would point out that the policy of the Amendment is not new. The party declared its position very emphatically and publicly, in 1909, at a conference of the organised labour movement, held at Portsmouth, for the special purpose of considering the question of national finance. The conference agreed that taxation should be in proportion to the ability to pay, and to the protection and benefit conferred on the individual by the State; that no taxation should be imposed which encroaches on the individual's means to satisfy his physical and primary needs; that taxation should aim at securing for the communal benefit all unearned increment of wealth; that taxation should be levied, therefore, on unearned moneys, and should aim deliberately at preventing the retention of great fortunes in private hands. The conference further declared—and this is our position so far as the Amendment is concerned—that indirect taxation falls oppressively on industrious classes, and should be repealed; that the cost of social reform—and in view of his speech I would direct the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to this point—should be borne by socially created wealth now appropriated by the rich in the form of rent, profit and interest. The conference also called for the following four points to be contained in the next Budget: A Super tax on large incomes; special taxation on State conferred monopolies; increased Estate and Legacy Duties; and a substantial beginning with the taxation of land values. When we seek to give effect to such a programme, the Noble Lord and his Friends describe it as a great sham fight. But there are other occasions when they regard our position much more seriously. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. W.
1638
Long), speaking at Cardiff on the 18th September, 1909, said:—
"Whether we are Liberals or Conservatives, we must admit that in respect of the finance of the country the old Liberal principles and the old Liberal ideas have been swallowed up in the Socialist view which prevails in the Budget."
That is not all. I remember during the Debate on the Finance Bill of 1909 listening in another place to a speech by the late Lord Cawdor. That speech interested me very much, and I should like, for the benefit of the Noble Lord opposite and his Friends, to make a quotation from it. Lord Cawdor said:—
"I want to say a word or two as to the origin and paternity of this Budget. We have heard a good deal of the great labours which have been bestowed upon it by the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not question that for a moment, but it is somewhat singular that a pamphlet should have been issued early this year, entitled 'A few hints to Mr. Lloyd George: where the money is to come from. This pamphlet sets out very clearly what, in the view of the writer, was the method by which the taxation of the year should be raised. It says that at a special conference on taxation recently held by the Labour party at Portsmouth a resolution was unanimously passed which set forth the ideas of the party on the general question of taxation, and also formulated financial demands for which the party must press in the present Session of Parliament. The pamphlet goes on to suggest four ways of raising the new taxes, and your Lordships will find that each of them has been put in the Budget of this year. On the back of the pamphlet is printed what professes to be a quotation from Mr. Lloyd George's speech in the House of Commons on 25th May, 1908, when Mr. Lloyd George is stated to have said this: 'Mr. Snowden has made many suggestions which will no doubt be valuable to future Chancellors of the Exchequer.'"
Lord Cawdor proceeded:—
"It does not seem to be necessary to wait for future Chancellors of the Exchequer, for here, line for line and Clause for Clause, your Lordships will find the Budget of the day dictated and demanded, not by the Government but of the Government, by Mr. Snowden and the Socialist party. I hope we shall not get very much doubt cast upon the parentage of this Liberal Budget. I think it is clear who the real parents are."
If these were the serious opinions of the Opposition in 1909, I want to point out that they cannot have it both ways; they cannot be insisting, first of all, upon the proper or real parentage of these Budgets, and then when we move an Amendment, seriously and publicly charge us across the floor of the House with conducting nothing more than a mere sham fight. At any rate, I am prepared to think that our sham fight has been fairly successful. We shall be willing to do more if only we can force what are called our Socialist views into the Budget of the day as we have done in the opinion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. My last word on these points is—and I would like to impress them upon the Noble Lord and his Friends—that we of the Labour party shall do our own work in

1639
our own way, and the last thing that we shall do is to study either the political or the Parliamentary convenience of the party opposite. Having dealt thus far with the view represented by the Noble Lord opposite, I want to come to the case made out against the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he will permit me to say so, the speech he delivered against our Amendment neither did credit to his heart nor his head. I consider that speech completely stultified the position that he has very frequently declared for, both by speech and vote in this House. That speech was also an emphatic contradiction of the declared policy of his party, and falsifies the expectations that their own declarations have created. What was the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took up? Let me remind the House. He began by saying, "Let the House realise what would happen if the Amendment were carried, the man who does not smoke, and the man who is a teetotaler"—that includes me, I suppose—"would contribute nothing towards the Imperial expenditure of the country—not a penny; he would get his share of the pensions when the time comes, and of contributions towards insurance, and there would be the education of his children." May I ask how this statement harmonises with the policy of the Liberal party? For years, I think I am right in saying for twenty-four years, the abolition of the breakfast-table duties has found a prominent place in the Liberal programmes. There is not a single Member of the Government, I think, that is unpledged to their abolition.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)dissented.
Mr. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says he is. I cannot understand how when, year after year, for I think twenty-four years, as I have said, the National Liberal Federation, at which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken often and often, has declared this to be a foremost plank of the party programme, how it comes that he now says he is in no way committed.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not.
Mr. HENDERSON: I withdraw to that extent, because I find that one, even the leader of the party, does not accept the programme laid down at the annual meet-
1640
ings of the National Liberal Federation. At any rate, I think I am right this far in saying that the Prime Minister, when he sat on the other side of the House, when I first came into Parliament, and when the Liberal party were in opposition, did go into the Lobby for the reduction of the duties upon tea and sugar—
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and I reduced them when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. HENDERSON: I am quite prepared to make that admission. I think, both by their speeches and votes, the entire rank and file of the Liberal party are committed to the abolition of the breakfast-table duties. I have in my hand a list of the Amendments which have been moved to the Finance Act over a series of years. I find that not only have the ordinary private Members of the Liberal party moved reductions, but I find that the President of the Board of Education, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), and the Under-Secretary to the Local Government Board, are all included in the list of those who made themselves responsible for proposing a reduction, either upon tea or sugar, in the Budgets to which I refer. Beginning with 1897, every year, with one exception, right to, I think, 1905, an Amendment was moved by the Liberal party for a reduction of the duties on tea, sugar, and tobacco, and I think supported almost unanimously by the Members of the Liberal party who were present in the House when the Divisions were taken. But I would like to examine the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the teetotaller and the nonsmoker. I speak feelingly upon this matter. He says he is not going to contribute a penny to Imperial expenditure, while he gets the pension, the Insurance Act, and education for his children, and he must be made to pay. That is the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. Now, what does this mean? What we were told repeatedly were war taxes and that they were oppressive when the right hon. Gentleman was part of the Opposition have now become equitable and just social reform taxes when the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends are in power. What I want to know in regard to the pensions is this: What becomes of the public statement on every platform that the pensions were passed into law on

1641
a non-contributory and a non-discriminatory basis. Surely that fact cannot be true. If people have to pay for their pensions, it strikes me very forcibly that they had better pay for them direct. I want to dwell upon that point. I was altogether in support of the Old Age Pensions Bill through all its stages, but I would have preferred, had I known that there was going to be any attempt on the part of the Liberal party to perpetuate these breakfast-table duties for the purpose of, paying for old age pensions and for questions of social reform, I should have preferred, just as I prefer taxation to be direct, that the payment for old age pensions should be direct also. I point out that under this system of finance some of our very best workpeople are going to be most unfairly dealt with. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why. He says the workman will be entitled to his pension when the time comes, therefore he must pay. I said there are thousands of the best of our workpeople doing all they can to add to the nation's wealth—the steady teetotaller and the non-smoker—who has joined, because they are steady men, both the trades union and the friendly society, and because they have done so, if they live to be as old as Methuselah, they will never be entitled to an old age pension at all. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman thought of that when telling the House and the country that the workman receives his pension when the time comes, and therefore he must pay through the maintenance of the duties on tea and sugar and other forms of taxation.
The right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, told the House, I think in 1904 or 1905, that these indirect taxes amounted to £7 5s. per family, equal to an Income Tax of 1s. 7d. on the average wage of the working class family. In spite of the reduction of which the Prime Minister reminded me, and for which we are thankful—we are thankful for small mercies—may I ask in spite of the reduction whether there is very much difference in an Income Tax of 1s. 7d. arising out of indirect forms of taxation mentioned by the Postmaster-General in consequence of that reduction. Notwithstanding this declaration that such duties as those on tea and sugar fall heavily upon the working classes, we have very little encouragement after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman against our Amendment to hope for any further reduction, or for their entire removal as our
1642
Amendment demands. I would like to ask why should the right hon. Gentleman be so anxious to make the working people pay for their pensions, and for the Insurance Act. If they have to pay a tax equal to an Income Tax of 1s. 7d., what becomes of the argument of 9d. for 4d. When in addition to the weekly payment of 4d. now demanded from the worker for sickness insurance, every year that the Budget comes up, and any scheme of social reform is passed we are to be told that it is essential that taxes on tea, sugar, tobacco and spirits must be retained in order to assist in the State's contribution towards the National Health Insurance Act. It seems to me that is a position totally inconsistent with the position always taken up by the party with which the right hon Gentleman is connected. I would also ask why is it that the right hon. Gentleman now changes his position, and that he is so anxious for the working man to contribute either directly or indirectly to Imperial taxation? How is it that in this House and in the country he called attention with eloquence and with force not only to the great extension of national wealth, but to that which is more important from my point of view, the glaring inequalities of wealth distribution?
The hon. Member for North Hants pointed out that the Income Tax exemption limit of £160 split the national income into two almost equal parts. Of the total income of over £1,800,000,000 in 1908, those with £160 a year numbered 1,400,000 persons with £634,000,000 4,100,000 people took £275,000,000, making a total of 5,500,000 persons taking £909,000,000. Surely that is an item that the right hon. Gentleman should constantly keep in mind! On the other hand, the remaining 39,000,000 persons divided the remaining half of the national income—£935,000,000. In this latter class, according to Professor Bowley, there are 320,000 men whose wages are under 15s. per week, 640,000 men whose wages are from 15s. to 21s. per week, and over 3,000,000 of men whose wages are from 20s. to 30s. per week. Surely, with such social and economic inequalities as are known to obtain, the last thing the right hon. Gentleman should hint at is the perpetuation of this system of indirect taxation, even with the laudable purpose of giving effect to the claims of social reform! We are strongly of opinion, and I think the figures I have quoted prove it, that

1643
the workers who create national wealth are already exploited far too much. They contribute largely to that wealth without proper reward either for their services or their sacrifice. In this way they contribute more largely to national resources than any protection they receive from the State. In our opinion, indirect taxes are physically wasteful, they are insidious in their character, they are socially unpatriotic. Taxes on food, especially on tea and sugar, are indefensible, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer once said, and I am sure he will pardon me for closing my speech with one of his own perorations. Speaking on a similar Amendment, at any rate an Amendment dealing with taxes on tea, he said:—
"The Tea Duty puts an unfair burden on the poorest class of the community. The same objection applies in the case of the Sugar Taxes, and it was because of that method of unfair taxation between high and low, rich and poor, that he supported the Amendment for its reduction."
For these reasons, and the reasons I have myself advanced, I desire to support, not only by speech but I will take the opportunity of supporting by my vote in the Lobby, the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
The PRIME MINISTER: I listened, as I always do, both with interest and with respect to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, but I confess I cannot follow him in some of his facts and in most of his conclusions. The question raised by this Amendment is one which goes down to the very root of our system of national finance. Really it is a question, when we come to analyse it, of exactly in what proportion, and to what extent, are the burdens of our national expenditure to be spread over the various classes of the community. Now my hon. Friend has said some Members of the party to which I belong, and the National Liberal Federation—and as to that I should like a little further authority—committed themselves in the past to the fiscal programme which goes under the popular designation of a free breakfast table—that is to say, the abolition of all duties upon articles of consumption. I have never committed myself to any such position, and I have never seen my way, since I had to do with these matters as a practical and responsible statesman, to any rearrangement of our fiscal system which ought not and would not of necessity involve the imposition upon all classes without any distinction—I am not
1644
speaking of those who are below the poverty line—in this country of something in the nature of an adequate proportionate contribution to our national expenditure. I do not think there is any doctrine morel fatal to the root principle of democratic government than that it should consist of the constant amelioration at great expense to the community of the social conditions of the less favoured classes of the country at the sole and exclusive expense of the other classes.
Mr. ROWNTREE: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman means by the poverty line?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is not very relevant to my argument, because I am now dealing with much more general considerations. What is the case at this moment? The hon. Member who moved this Amendment treated the taxation which falls upon the working classes as amounting to £60,000,000. That is to say, he attributed to them as taxpayers four-fifths of the total Customs and Excise revenue of the country. That is what they are supposed to pay. On the other hand, that which they were supposed to get in return was only £39,000,000, made up of amounts for old age pensions, education, and insurance. Is that a fair way of taking the proportions? I want to ask my hon. Friends below the Gangway—and I am speaking with no kind of party feeling, and certainly with no desire to throw any excessive burden upon the working classes—is that a fair method? Let us examine it for a moment. First of all, as regards the contribution of the working classes. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) put the amount at £60,000,000, or four-fifths of the total Customs and Excise revenue. Is that right? Let us analyse the Customs and Excise revenue, and let me take a few items which do not fall, and cannot fall in any reasonable sense upon the working classes at all: Cigars, imported Spirits, Motor Spirit, Wine, Licences for Wine Dealers, Game, and Guns, Licences on Carriages, Motor Cars, and miscellaneous Licences of various kinds. If you add those items together, not a halfpenny of which falls on the working classes, they come to £7,000,000. So that you must begin by deducting from the £74,000,000, the total of Customs and Excise revenue, this £7,000,000, which brings it down to £67,000,000.
Let us carry the analysis a little further. Take this £67,000,000. Is that paid or con-

1645
tinued to be paid by the working classes? It is obvious that rich and well-to-do people consume a great deal of tea, sugar, spirits and beer, and if you take my hon. Friend's four-fifths as the working-class contribution, that gives us at the outside, £53,000,000 instead of £60,000,000. Let us look at the other side. In the first place, I demur entirely to the view that any class of the community, working class or any other class, can be treated as receiving no benefit from the expenditure of the State upon the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service. For whom are those services kept up? They are not for the benefit of the well-to-do classes or the middle classes, but for the benefit of the community as a whole. You may say that we spend too much on them, and perhaps we do. That is a point I am not prepared to contest as a general proposition. It is possible that we do, but to leave entirely out of account as they do, as a thing from which the, working classes or any class derive no benefit, the whole of our expenditure on the Army and Navy and Civil Service is surely an absolutely unthinkable argument. I cannot understand from what point of view any hon. Member of this House, no matter in what quarter he sits, can justify the votes he gives every year in Committee of Supply, if it is going to be contended that expenditure in regard to items like old age pensions, insurance, or education, do not benefit the working classes of this country. The only justification for our enormous annual national expenditure, increasing as it does year by year and generation by generation, or for any particular item, is that it is expenditure warranted in the common interests and not in the interests of one class alone. Therefore, I cannot in the least admit, as a strong supporter of social legislation, and as one mainly responsible for the largest item of it, namely, old age pensions, that you are to set up a debtor and creditor account as between the working class and the State, or that you are to exclude on the side of the account upon which they receive benefit the expenditure which goes more directly into the pockets of the working classes.
Let us leave out the Army and the Navy and take the Civil Service. It has grown enormously during the thirty years or so which I have been in this House. It has grown in every Department, and why? Twenty years ago, when I was Secretary of State for the Home Department, the first thing that attracted my attention, and to which I gave my attention, was a sparse
1646
and wholly inadequate provision that was made in factories, workshops, and mines for the protection of the life of the working community, and a very large part of the enormous increase that has taken place during those twenty years in the expenditure of that Department has been caused by the additional provision which the State has made, and has, I think, most wisely and justly made for the effective administration of the law for the protection of the lives and limbs of the workmen. Are we to leave all that out of account? Is anyone going to say who speaks on behalf of the working classes, that they have not benefited and do not benefit by that? If you are going to draw up a debtor and creditor account as between them and the State, ought the State not to be credited with that provision which has been made exclusively for their benefit? That is the Home Office alone. If time allowed, I might multiply my illustrations and draw upon every other Department of the State—the Board of Trade, Labour Exchanges, the Local Government Board, sanitation, housing, all the various provisions which we now make, all unheard of and unthought of thirty or forty years ago, and all of which are intended for and inure to the benefit of the great masses of the people of this country. You might extend your survey throughout the whole domain of Government Departments. I will leave, if you like, the Army and Navy out of the account, though I do not admit that you are entitled to do so, and I will take that which has been the source of almost as large a part of additions to our national expenditure within the lifetime and experience of the older Members of this House, and you will find the great bulk of it has been inspired by and incurred for the benefit not of the well-to-do class, but of the whole community. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that I am not dealing with this question in any controversial spirit. My hon. Friend undesignedly, I am sure, over-estimated the contribution that is levied upon the working classes, and, on the other hand, under-estimated the amount which they received.
Let me apply to the same statement a rather different test—one which has often been applied in the past by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I mean the relation in the total income of the country between direct and indirect taxation. Ten years ago, when Mr. Ritchie was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the proportion between direct and indirect taxation with regard to

1647
the whole revenue of the country was, I think, exactly even, 50 per cent. being contributed by direct and 50 per cent. by indirect taxation. When we came into office in the year 1905 that still remained substantially true, and I can give the exact figures. The proportion then was 50.3 per cent. direct and 49.7 indirect taxation. What is it now in 1912–13? Direct taxation is 57.6, and indirect taxation 42.4. Perhaps it will be more instructive if I translate these percentages into concrete terms, and give the amount of money. In the year 1905–6 the total amount raised by direct taxation was £64,120,000, and it is now £89,205,000. It has risen from 64.1 to 89.2 per cent. On the other hand, in that year, 1905–6, the amount raised by indirect taxes was £63,300,000, and it is now £65,600,000. It follows, the House will see, that the amount raised by direct taxation in those seven years has increased £25,000,000, and the amount raised by indirect taxation has increased £2,000,000. In the meantime the population has increased from 43,000,000 to over 45,000,000. Let us put the same thing in another way. Take it per head of the population. The burden of direct taxation per head of the population, which in 1905–6 was £1 9s. 10d., is now £l 19s. 3d. That is to say, roughly speaking, it has grown by 10s. per head. How does the same burden rest in indirect taxation? The indirect taxation in 1905–6 was £1 9s. 5d. It is now £1 8s. 10d. So that while the direct taxation has increased per head of the population something like 10s., the indirect taxation has been diminished by very nearly, though not quite, 1s.
Of course, that does not complete the account. Take this indirect taxation itself, and analyse its character and its quality and therefore its incidence. You must divide the indirect taxation which we impose in this country into two quite distinct categories. First, there arc taxes upon food, in the strict sense of the word, that is to say, on the necessaries of life, in which category, I agree, tea comes, and, I think, sugar. I have always been a very severe critic of the Sugar Tax, because it is not only part of the food of the people, but also a raw material of a very valuable industry, and primâ; facie, therefore, it is not a desirable tax. Take tea and sugar as food taxes in the strict sense of the term, taxes which fall upon the necessaries of life, and then, on the other hand, take the other category of your indirect taxa-
1648
tion, which may fairly be described as sumptuary taxation, by which I mean taxes on luxuries and superfluities which are not necessaries of life, such as alcohol and tobacco. I think I am entitled to take alcohol and tobacco on the whole as sumptuary taxes, and taxes on tea, cocoa, coffee, sugar, currants and so forth as taxes on articles of food in the strict sense of the word. How does the matter stand there? In 1905–6 the sumptuary indirect taxation amounted to 78 per cent. of the whole, and the food taxation to 22 per cent. Now, after the changes which my right hon. Friend and I who have been in charge of the Exchequer have effected, the sumptuary element or ingredient of indirect taxation is 83 per cent., and the other element which falls upon food is only 17 per cent., so that the sumptuary taxation has risen from 78 per cent. to 83 per cent., whereas the other taxation which falls upon food has sunk from 22 per cent. to 17 per cent. I quite agree, if I am to I express my own opinion, that I do not think we are within measurable distance of seeing the total abolition of all taxes upon food, because, although I admit to the full the economic objections, I do not see in what other way you can raise your revenue. I admit, if you compare the amount of the Tea Duty with the actual cost of the article on which it is imposed, that it is a very heavy duty. The right hon. Gentleman reduced it I think by one penny.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think I could only leave it where I found it.
The PRIME MINISTER: At any rate, I reduced it by one penny. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would have reduced it if he could, because no Chancellor of the Exchequer who has been responsible for the finances of this country can have investigated these matters without feeling that the proportion of the Tea Duty actually imposed by the State to the cost of the article is a very enormous percentage. I had great satisfaction in reducing it by 1d., and I would have reduced it by 2d. if I could. With regard to sugar, the last year I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the full consent of my right hon. Friend who succeeded me, I reduced the duty by more than one-half, at a loss of over £3,000,000 to the revenue. So that within the limits of our opportunities we have really shown our desire—the figures which I have quoted now show with the most marked and appreciable result—first of all, to establish

1649
a fairer balance as between direct and indirect taxation, and then within the ambit of indirect taxation itself to load the balance in favour of that class which is sumptuary and to unload the balance in favour of that class which falls on food. The food taxes—this is the last figure I will give to the House by way of illustrating the same thing—which in 1905–6 were £14,000,000 in round figures on a population of 43,000,000, or, in other words, 6s. 6d. per head, are in 1912–13 £10,200,000 only on a population of 45,500,000, or, in other words, 4s. 6d. per head. That is an actual reduction of the food taxes during those seven years from 6s. 6d. to 4s. 6d., 2s. per head of the population, or about 30 per cent. If you take into account, as you must to form a fair judgment in these matters, the enormous additional expenditure on the one hand which we have been called upon to make for the purposes of national defence in regard to the Navy, and on the other hand the still more serious outlay with regard to social reform, old age pensions, Labour Exchanges, and national insurance, £20,000,000 in all—if you consider those two enormous additional burdens, one of them needed for the national security in what I may call its external sense, and the other needed, and even more needed, for the national security and well-being in its internal and more vital sense, an expenditure in regard to which you may criticise this or that particular item, but as regards which in the whole of its amount and the purpose to which it is applied, I am perfectly certain that there will be no going back, whatever combination of political chances and vicissitudes the future may have in store for us—when you remember we have had to meet in the course of seven years that enormous additional burden dictated by the necessities of the country, and when you realise that we have met it not by increasing but by reducing the actual burdens with regard to food on the great mass of the people, I say that there is no foundation whatever for the charge which has been brought against us.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have already addressed the House on the Second Reading of the Budget, and I had no intention when I came to listen to the Debate to-day to take any part in this afternoon's discussion. I never had any intention of voting nor could I vote, for the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), and I had intended to leave the discussion be-
1650
tween hon. Gentlemen on those benches and the Members of the Government, not myself taking any part in it. If I rise now it is in consequence of the speech of the Prime Minister and to say two things. In the first place to say, as I think I may, not merely for my Friends but for every Member of the House, that we are grateful that the disorderly interruption [a missile having been thrown by a stranger in the Gallery as far as Mr. SPEAKER'S Chair] while he was speaking had no untoward result. In the second place, I have felt that I should not be discharging my duty if, after so important a declaration from the Prime Minister, I did not at least express the measure of my agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The right hon. Gentleman has shown himself once again a past master of powerful and lucid argument, and I think that no one who listened to him will have failed to feel the force of the arguments with which he met the Amendment which has been moved from below the Gangway on that side of the House. I do not want to follow the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not equipped to do so on the spur of the moment, through all the very interesting figures that he has given. I accept them from him. I rise for the purpose of associating myself with the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentlemen at the beginning of his speech. I have said before, and I hope I shall continue to say as long as I have the honour to have a seat in this House, as the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day, that nothing could be worse for our country, or for our national life than to lay it down, that whilst an ever-increasing expenditure was being incurred for particular classes of the community those classes or a large proportion of them were at the same time to be exempted from any call to contribute to the National Treasury.
My agreement with the right hon. Gentleman goes a step further, though on many fiscal questions we differ. I agree that as our expenditure increases a larger proportion of it in all probability, certainly a larger amount, will have to be borne by the better-to-do amongst us. That is a necessity whichever party is in power, and a necessity which all will recognise. But I do oppose with all the weight I can command either in this House or out of it, the doctrine that any class of the community who can maintain themselves, and who have the advantages of citizenship of this country

1651
are to be exempt from any contribution whatever to the charges on it. I think it would have been very interesting if the Prime Minister had been prepared to define more closely what he called the poverty limit, but it did not come within the scheme of his speech to deal with that question. For my part I should put the limit of total exemption very low indeed. I think I should not exclude anybody who, as the Prime Minister said, was able to maintain himself. As the Debate goes on, I hope that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who are responsible for this Amendment will tell us what is in their minds. As I listened to their speeches their argument appeared to be that a large proportion of our people are too poor to make any contributions to the State. Why have they not the courage to say so in their Amendment?
Mr. O'GRADY: We have said it over and over again.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is their argument, but their Amendment does not say that large classes ought to be exempt. I think it ought to say that, if that is the meaning of the hon. Members who support it, because it is always desirable that the Amendment which is moved should raise the real issues between us. If their speeches correctly represent their views, then I think those views are even worse than their Amendment, and I find myself on that point at any rate in harmony with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think a good many of the comparisons—or some of them—which he made, are open to some question. I do not mean that the particulars themselves are liable to dispute, but the deductions to be drawn from them are an open question. It is very difficult to get any calculation even of the roughest kind which is trustworthy as to the proportion of indirect taxation paid by one class and by another. You may separate the very rich at the one end of the scale and the very poor at the other end, but what about the many grades between—the fairly well-to-do, and the humble middle classes, who really, when you try to divide taxation between direct and indirect, not only come into the scale of direct taxation, but also come into the scale of indirect taxation, and I am not at all sure, if you come to examine whose case is the hardest under our present system you may not find it is
1652
not the class of taxpayers to be found either at the very poor end or at the very rich end of the scale. Nor is it necessary—and this is the only point of controversy, I think, between the Prime Minister and myself—that our indirect taxation should maintain the character which it holds today. No doubt, with the limited exceptions mentioned, the indirect taxes of today press on the working classes in heavier proportion to their incomes than they press on the rich or on the better-to-do. But is there any reason why we should not have some more indirect taxes which, like the Wine Duties for instance or the duties on foreign cigars, press not at all on the working man, but do exact contributions, conveniently and without great complaint, from those who can afford to pay. I do not want to pursue that subject now, though I really think I should not be absolutely out of order. But I ought not to draw that herring across the path of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. All I want to guard myself against is the assumption I have so often heard that the simple statement, that so much per cent. of the taxation is drawn from direct taxation and so much from indirect taxation, leads to any useful calculation whatever. I would much rather hear what those taxes are and what other taxes are imposed under your system. It is a not unfamiliar thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House to listen to attacks on an individual tax when it comes under discussion, and in the course of which the spokesman neglects all other taxes, and says, "How can you justify taking 5d. in the pound on the poor man's tea, when you only take 5d. in the pound on the tea of the millionaire?" If that were the only tax it could not be defended, and the duty would not have lasted. It has only been made possible by the counterbalancing action of other taxes, and when you proceed to consider the merits or justice of any individual tax you have to survey your system of taxation as a whole. I do not desire to add anything to what the Prime Minister said in opposition to the position taken up by hon. Members below the Gangway, but I think when a question of such importance is raised, and when the speech made by the Prime Minister was entirely, I almost said of a non-party character, but was entirely of an argumentative and reasonble character, I might almost be open to a charge of cowardice if I did not say that, on the

1653
general principle of the contribution of all citizens to the expenses of our country in proportion to their means, I rank myself with the Prime Minister and against the hon. Gentleman who put forward this Amendment.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I had no intention of speaking on this Debate when it opened this afternoon, and I shall certainly address myself to the House for only a few minutes. But as the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down expressed some doubt about the intentions and purposes of the Amendment, I thought I might profitably intervene. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Amendment, he will see that it is perfectly clear. It lays down first of all the proposition that, by taxing the food of the people, an unfair proportion of indirect taxation falls upon the poorest section of the community. It then goes on to ask for the abolition of the Food Taxes, and suggests that the necessary revenue should be raised by direct taxation on unearned incomes and large estates. That in a sentence is the position which this party takes up, and that position is consistent to a very considerable extent with some of the general propositions laid down both by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and by the Prime Minister himself. The point we are on now is a very simple one, which can be best shown by this illustration. If you impose 5d. duty on every pound of tea sold over a grocer's counter, that means that every person who consumes it, irrespective of ability to pay, has to pay precisely the same tax as the richest person in the whole community. That is what we are up against. We lay down the proposition that taxation must be imposed with some idea as to ability to pay. That is the principle that is laid down so far as direct taxation is concerned—very roughly, but not absolutely accurately—I am afraid it will never come to that—but that is the general idea that has been laid down both by theoretical economists and practical Chancellors of the Exchequer so far as direct taxation is concerned, and our proposal is that that also shall be the rule when you begin to impose indirect taxation. Why should a woman whose income is 7s. per week, and who by force of circumstances has to depend too much upon the drinking of tea for her meals, why should she pay on tea, which is bought in the London market at
1654
3d. or 4d. a pound, a duty of 5d. per pound, just as much as any wealthier member of this House, who buys tea at 2s. 6d. or 3s. per pound? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can defend that position even on his own arguments. But with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman that is the position from which our Amendment starts.
5.0 P.M.
Take the case of sugar. The position is exactly the same, with this additional argument—an argument of which the Prime Minister saw the force—that sugar is not merely an article of consumption, but it is also raw material, and there is nothing more desired in Liberal principles of taxation than that raw material should be free from taxation. That is the position we take up in our Amendment. It is not a question altogether of distribution such as the Prime Minister discussed. His figures are very interesting, but they require very careful examination. According to his own admission they are, so to say, more or less rule-of-thumb figures, and it is absolutely impossible in his tables to separate taxation in these two categories. But, after all, let us assume his figures are right. He cannot justify the taxation of tea, or the taxing of sugar as they are taxed at the present time. We have a double duty to perform. We have to try to prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite taxing corn, meat, eggs, and the other imports which they must tax if they are going to impose upon this country any system of Imperial preference. We think such a system will make matters very much worse, and we cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down can hold these heresies, and at the same time, hold the saner one which he discussed this afternoon in regard to taxation according to ability. We shall have to bear these remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in mind when he comes out in favour of Imperial preference or Tariff Reform. We have to resist that reproach, and while we are resisting it we are bound to protest, as we have done time and again, against the continued imposition of of taxes on food which, from their very nature, must press far more heavily on the poor than on the rich. The final part of the Amendment is that unearned incomes should pay far more than they do at present of the national expenses. Even the figures quoted by the Prime Minister are capable of much wider meaning. Take the matter of education. It is

1655
perfectly true that if you take the expenditure upon education it seems to be all paid in the interests of working men's children. But the whole of society is benefited by that expenditure. Take even the question of sanitation. Higher rents follow good houses. There is not a single example of social reform which is not the same; even old age pensions mean, in a great many districts in this country, higher rents. The Blue Books issued by the Education Department immediately after free education was introduced into this country contained reports from school inspectors stating that rents had gone up as a result of free education being given to working men's children. So that if we are to go in for a scientific examination of this shuffling of taxation from one class to another then a considerable part of the figures the Prime Minister quoted to-day as being figures of money spent in the interests of the working classes, as a matter of fact, before many months are over, are translated into rents and profits and disappear from the possessions and enjoyments of the working classes altogether—no, not altogether, but to a very substantial extent. That must be taken into account. If persons who enjoy large rents and monopoly profits or large incomes, for which they have given society no return whatever, then in the adjustment of taxation we must take that into account, and the State is in duty bound to put more and more burdens upon those unearned incomes, so that the working classes are not asked to pay twice over for the apparent benefits they receive. I do not know what answer can be given to that. So far as I am concerned I have not discovered the answer, and until I do discover it I think the principles enunciated in this Amendment are good economic principles and ought to be put into operation far more rapidly than my right hon. Friend is doing as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: I do not want to discuss the general question raised by the Amendment, but I desire to refer to a specific point. I am dissatisfied with the position the Chancellor of the Exchequer took up in regard to the Sugar Duty. My contention, and I think the contention of a great many other Liberals is that the tax on sugar is so bad and so vicious that however the money has to be raised the tax on sugar ought to be abolished. Holding this view, I am much
1656
concerned at the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the year 1909, in answer to a deputation, he said that the party and he himself were pledged to reduce it. I am not going to quote what the right hon. Gentleman said when he was in Opposition. Everybody knows that he denounced the Sugar Tax in unmistakable language. He not only denounced the Sugar Tax but he denounced the party opposite for not having taken it off. I think that in fact every Member of the Government has denounced the Sugar Tax, including the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think every Member of the Liberal party has also denounced it, in fact one Gentleman who is now a Member of the Government, in 1905, went so far as to say:—
"The Unionist Government was morally pledged to take off this extra tax when the war was over, and in that they have not done that they have deceived and defrauded the people."
If they defrauded the people by not taking off the tax I do not know what we ought to say of the Liberal Government, who are more deeply pledged to take it off. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] I am speaking of a Member of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] I will not say. It is the change in the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which I wish to call attention. He led the country to understand in 1909, that although he could not take off the tax in that particular year, that he meant to take it off. His enthusiasm seemed very soon to wane, for in 1910 he made no reference to the Sugar Tax in his Budget, in 1911 there was no suggestion of relieving sugar, in 1912 there was nothing except a statement that the crop had failed, and we all know what is in the Budget this year, while subsequently to the bringing in of the Budget this year we had a disquisition upon the ability of the working classes to pay a considerable share towards the expenses of the government of the country. I am a little alarmed at the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer is treating this question. It is very disappointing. When we have the head of the Government describing this tax as
"vicious in principle, burdensome in its incidence, and unequal in its operation as between classes,"
I cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not taken it off. It is little short of a reach of faith with the party and with the country. What I really rose for is to ask what the Chancellor of the Exchequer really means. I want to

1657
know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any real intention of repealing this Sugar Tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a bit."]—or is he of opinion, as I rather gather from his speeches, that the Sugar Tax is a fair burden to put upon the working classes as part of the payment for old age pensions and insurance? That is taking away with one hand what is given with the other. For my part, I rather believe in people redeeming their pledges, and in justice before benevolence. I am a believer in the Insurance Act, but if I had been asked before the Insurance Act was brought in whether I would be in favour of taking off a tax like the Sugar Tax—which falls hardest upon the very poorest people in the country, upon people with the largest families, and perhaps falls heaviest upon little children—or in favour of passing a Bill like the Insurance Bill, I should have said, "Take off the tax first, and let us be benevolent afterwards." Granted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given some quid pro quo to the working classes in the shape of this benevolent legislation, what about the question of raw material? The Prime Minister, with that conciseness we all admire so much, said the Sugar Tax had the double vice that it was a tax upon food and a tax upon raw material. We Free Traders are against all taxes being imposed upon imports into this country, but we are certainly most against taxes being put on raw materials. I do not know what the users of sugar, confectioners, jam makers, and mineral water manufacturers, have done that they should be singled out from all the trades to be penalised by having their raw material taxed. These trades employ a very large number of hands, certainly more than 100,000; they carry on their business under the best conditions in many instances, and they are trades which have the advantage of being carried on in different parts of the country, often in the country districts where the hands can live under better surroundings than they can in other trades, yet these trades are chosen to be harassed and restricted by this Sugar Tax. I do not think that is fair at all.
Besides that, there are other trades which almost depend upon these trades, such as box-makers, bottle makers, and, above all, the fruit industry. A Committee of the Board of Trade investigated this question, and came to the conclusion, upon the evidence brought before it, that
1658
nothing was so injurious to the fruit growers as dear sugar. We hear a great deal nowadays about putting the land to the best use, yet here we are putting on a tax which handicaps the fruit industry and so decreases the market for one of the great products of our land. For all these reasons I think the tax certainly ought to go. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought in Budget after Budget since 1907, when the Prime Minister denounced the tax as a vicious tax. The revenue of the country has increased something like £40,000,000, and it is surprising that all these Budgets have been brought in and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never taken off this tax. I do not myself care how the money has to be found, but this tax ought to come off. I do not care whether it is put on to the Income Tax or even on to the Tea Duty. I differentiate very much between the Tea Duty and the Sugar Tax. Tea is not a necessity, but sugar is a necessity for little children, and it is a raw material, therefore there is a great difference between the two. I do not care how the money has to be found; it should be found somewhere. I cannot see why it cannot be found out of the Sinking Fund or in some other way. A tax which the head of the Government has described as a vicious tax ought not to be allowed, and is a tax which ought to be got rid of as soon as possible. I am in favour of the debt of the country being reduced, but if to reduce the Debt of the country you have to put on a tax which falls heaviest on the very poorest people, which is also a tax upon raw material and a tax which the head of the Government describes as a vicious tax, I think it would be better not to pay off so much of our Debt and to repeal this tax.
Sir G. PARKER: I congratulate the Labour Members present on the support they have had from the hon. Baronet. He has supported the Amendment not from the standpoint of the working classes, but from the standpoint of that body of men against whom the Labour Members in this House have a great deal to say. It is quite true that as he closed his speech he spoke of the tax resting upon the poorer classes of the community, but the whole burden of his speech was that the tax should be taken off because it interfered with the profits of the bottle makers, the mineral water makers, the makers of jam, and the confectioners.
Sir F. CAWLEY: They also employ a great deal of labour.
Sir G. PARKER: That is an afterthought on the part of the hon. Baronet. He has arrived at that, having had the advantage of this moment's criticism.
Sir F. CAWLEY: I said so. I said they employ 100,000 or 200,000 hands.
Sir G. PARKER: I again say to the Labour Members that they are to be congratulated on the nature of the support which they have received. I was very much struck with the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who did not speak to the Amendment and proposed nothing in relation to the Amendment. The Amendment specifically lays down the proposition that there should be removed from the financial system of this country the taxation of food. The hon. Member did not say a single word concerning the complete abandonment of the taxation of food and its removal from the fiscal system of this country. The burden of his argument was that the tax on tea and the tax on sugar were unjust because they fell more heavily on the poor person than on the rich, in spite of the fact that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) had previously said that a great many people, in opposing these specific individual taxes, refused to take into account the numbers of taxes paid by well-to-do and rich people which the poorer classes did not pay at all. I charge the Labour party with not being quite fair to the House in putting this Amendment forward. Do they really mean that they wish to abolish from the fiscal system of this country all taxation of food and all taxation of the working classes? If they mean that, we know where we are. That is to say, that the working classes are not to contribute to the charges of the administration of this country at all—for the Civil Service, for education, for the many charges laid upon the community in general for the benefit of all classes. If they do not mean that there is to be no taxation of the working classes, but there is to be some other kind of taxation rather than the taxation of food, why has not some Member of the Labour party suggested this alternative in his speech? The Amendment suggests the alternative. The Amendment suggests, not alternative taxes on the working classes, or food taxation, but that the £10,000,000 which now is contributed from
1660
the taxation of food, which all classes pay, shall be paid by unearned increment and large estates. Do the Labour Members really think that the House can take their Amendment seriously or can take them seriously? They knew perfectly well, however, that they could not present to this House an Amendment suggesting the reduction of food taxes for the simple reason that over a series of years, when we have proposed and hon. Members from that side of the House have proposed reductions in those taxes, they have gone into the Lobby against the reduction and in support of the Government. The Labour party have got a great deal of assurance to come to this House and present an Amendment of this character, which they know they cannot carry, and which, if they believe in, they announce to this country that the working classes ought not to pay—not those below the poverty line, nor those just above the poverty line, but that the working classes generally, who now pay the food taxes, shall pay no tax at all, except those who have sufficient income to pay Income Tax. The House is justified in rejecting this Amendment without any consideration at all.
The Prime Minister this afternoon, in a very elaborate and powerful way, presented the national case for the taxation of all classes of the community who have the power of earning their living, and to that speech naturally all people who are not simply bound by partisan prejudice must subscribe. I want to point out once again the absolute inconsistency of the Labour party, which has been often proved in this House, but never so abundantly proved as by the exhibition of this Amendment. The hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson) said that the Amendment did not express really what the Labour party meant. The Labour party did not mean the abolition of taxes; they meant the adjustment of taxes in fair proportion to the capacity to pay. If that is what the Labour party meant, why did not the Labour party come down with an Amendment which exactly expresses what they meant? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) put it very fairly. He said it is the duty of the maker of an Amendment to express precisely in that Amendment what it is intended to achieve, and if the Amendment had been carried to-day it is quite clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to recast his Budget. The

1661
Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a position of not being able to carry out the financial responsibilities which rest upon him. What a farce it is! They know it cannot be carried. If they had been sincere in this business, they would have framed a Resolution which would have no binding effect on the House, but if the Resolution was carried the services of this country could not be performed, and the charges could not be met, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to recast his Budget. There is no danger, however, of the Labour party permitting that if they thought they were going to succeed. It is a window-dressing competition that is going on. First, it is the Liberal party, and now it is the Labour party. They have dressed the window, however, with very great effect this time, because the exposure has come, not from this side of the House, which is considered by Labour Members as their natural enemies, but by the head of the Government whom they support, and who has shown their constituents, as well as ours, that it is the duty of every man to contribute according to his capacity to the needs of the State and the charges of the State. I do not think the Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer need have much anxiety in their minds as to the result of this Amendment. But I am quite certain that if they watch the history of this Parliament for another year, if it exists for another year, these hon. Members below the Gangway, if they bring forward food taxes next year and require their support, in spite of this announcement of their policy and their creed, will go into the Lobby and support right hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for the finance of the country.
Mr. ROWNTREE: I am afraid all mortals are in danger of desiring to window-dress or, at any rate, to look into windows, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself sometimes indulges in the same kind of window-dressing with which he has just been charging Members of the Labour party. I regret to learn from his speech that he is not going to vote for this Amendment. There seemed a considerable desire the last time this Amendment was discussed on the part of hon. Members opposite to vote for it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Not at all. I am going to vote for the Government.
Mr. ROWNTREE: I think it was considered quite probable that there might
1662
be one or two voting with the Government, but I thought there was a general hope and desire that most hon. Members opposite would vote for the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not one."] Of course I accept what hon. Members say, but I regret it, because I wanted to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the Labour party were successful in getting the votes of hon. Members opposite, I hope next year the Budget would be framed more largely according to the desires of the Labour party. The answer that has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others to the Amendment has been that it is impossible to get rid of the food taxes, because of the large and growing expenditure of the country, and we have been reminded that since this Government has been in office, the Naval and Military expenditure has increased by £13,000,000, an expenditure which would have been quite sufficient to wipe out these food taxes.
Sir J. D. REES: And the country.
Mr. ROWNTREE: I believe there is general agreement with what the First Lord said about this expenditure when he spoke of the abyssmal folly of the existing race in armaments. I am perfectly certain that though we Members in this House may not see the way out at the present time, yet we are convinced that this intolerable race cannot go on for all time, and if the Leader of the Opposition was right last night when he said that imagination was the basis of statesmanship, statesmen, I think, can see what will be the end of this race. There are other ways of defending the country besides adding to these armaments year by year. I fancy that in the last few months the Foreign Secretary has probably done more for our safety than the First Lord of the Admiralty in the last six or seven years, and I trust that nothing may be done now by the Government to prevent an effort being made finally to federate the countries in Europe in one general federation. I wanted specially to refer to the problem that has been raised to-day in connection with the minimum wage, or rather the poverty line. I think the House would notice that the Prime Minister and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), whilst they both laid down the proposition that all classes in the community should contribute to the taxation of the country, made an exception in the case of those who were below the poverty line. The reason why I sym-

1663
pathise with the Amendment moved from the Labour Benches is because I believe it is from Amendments of this kind that we shall be able to get some alteration in our system of taxation for the very poor.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not give his opinion as to where he drew the poverty line, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was equally cautious. I fancy if hon. Members will study this question, they will find that it needs a wage of 25s. a week, or very near it, for a man and his wife and a family of three to live in a state of physical efficiency. I am speaking now of the urban rather than the rural areas, for I know that the problem is somewhat different in the rural areas. I believe you will find, if you only take the workhouse standard of food, that a family of five with present prices needs 25s. a week. If that is so, that is where I draw the poverty line. I should say that the first duty of this House is to try and see that the people of this country are living in a state of physical efficiency. I should say that that was the first line of defence. When the Prime Minister says that the Army and Navy must be reckoned as a help to the working classes, I do not dispute that, but I will say with confidence that organised labour has never asked for these huge increases, and the reason that organised labour has not asked for these large increases in armaments is because they consider that the first line of defence should be the physical efficiency of our people. I wish to give the House some examples of what happens as the result of this poverty which so many of our people are living under at the present time. There are a million men at the present time, or 12 per cent. of the workers, who are receiving under 20s. a week, and there are something like 32 per cent. of the workers who are receiving under 25s. Those are the latest statistics supplied by Professor Bowley, who is considered perhaps the most conservative of the statisticians on this matter. He is dealing with the weekly money wages of 8,000,000 adult men.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are the agricultural population included?
Mr. ROWNTREE: Yes, they are included here. May I, in this connection, give one or two figures as to what these wages mean to our country? I take the question of housing. I find that the late medical officer for Finsbury, after most
1664
careful inquiry extending over five years, pointed out that the death rate among those living in one-room tenements was 32.39 per thousand, whereas in the same district the death rate among those who live in four-room tenements was sixteen per thousand. It is perfectly correct to say that through this poverty we are killing thousands of people every year, and, if they had more wages, or if in some other way they could be helped by the State, we should be able to save them for the service of the State. Let me give some figures as to infant mortality. In York it was found not long ago that in the poorest areas 247 out of every thousand died under the age of one year, but that in the better class districts only ninety-four out of every thousand died. Anyone who has ever gone into this question knows that this is very largely the result of poverty and lowness of wages, The reason why I support this Amendment is because it seems to me futile for this House to be trying to raise by wages boards and in other ways the wages of the low-paid workers, and yet at the same time take from them a tax which they cannot afford. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose sympathies with the poor and whose work among the poor we all gladly recognise, will do what he can to look at this question of the large number of men who are below the poverty line.
May I say how this works out in the question of sugar? I happen to know a little about sugar. I know a good deal about the trades in which sugar is used. I worked out this morning what this tax—even the small tax that remains—meant in the consumption in a family. There is an average consumption of sugar in England to-day of about 80 1bs. per head per year. The tax at the present time is about one-fifth of a penny. I reckon a family as consisting of five persons, and the Sugar Tax itself costs every family something between 1¾d. and 2d. a week. What does that mean to the 2,000,000 families in this country who are not getting more than £50 a year? It means the equivalent of an Income Tax of between 1¾d. and 2d. in the £. Hon. Gentlemen say that you cannot put an extra Income Tax on when dealing with the wealthy. One of the arguments used in this Debate is, that if this money was got from Income Tax, it would rather overload the machine, and yet you are putting on the very poorest of this realm what is equivalent to an Income Tax of 1¾d. or

1665
2d. in the £. I really do not think this is a tax that can be supported by hon. Members on the other side of the House, and certainly it should not be supported by Liberals. I want also to show how it works in the confectionary trade.
Sir F. BANBURY: Ah!
Mr. ROWNTREE: Yes, and so that I shall not offend the hon. Baronet opposite I will not refer in any way to my own trade. I will refer to several makers of boiled sugar goods. I know something about their trade, and the hon. Baronet will recognise that I am not speaking about my own particular trade. Therefore, I hope that I am taking a disinterested view of this matter. The wholesale price of these sugared goods is in one case something like 22s. per hundredweight, and in the next case 38s. a hundredweight. These small men cannot get more than that figure for their goods, because if they ask more they prevent the goods being sold at anything like present prices. The percentage of sugar in these goods is 90 to 98 per cent. The average profit on the goods before the tax was put on was 5 per cent., which was equivalent to 1s. 1d. per hundredweight. This tax means that a man who makes a hundredweight of this class of goods has to pay 1s. 8d. to 1s. 10d., which wipes out entirely all his old profit. Where you are dealing with goods sold at 4d. a 1b. or at 8d. a 1b., the wholesale price of these goods cannot be more than a certain figure, and in these trades what has happened has been that they have been wiped out by this Sugar Duty. If hon. Members will look at the London Directory, they will find that the names of more than one-half of the sugar boilers who were in the Directory in 1901 are not there at present. I have not the slightest interest in any business of this kind, but this tax, which the Prime Minister admits is vicious and unfair in its incidence, has had the effect of seriously crippling this trade. A few of these people have managed to survive. The Government, and I am glad, are going to schedule the confectionery trade under the Trade Boards Act, not because it is a sweated industry, but because in certain departments of the trade wages are very low in some districts. But these sugar boilers say to those who have an interest in trying to get up the rate of wages that it is impossible to pay the higher wages which the Government ask because of the existence of the Sugar Duty. That is a very hard argument to answer.
Mr. CHARLES DIXON: You can get your sugar from abroad.
Mr. ROWNTREE: You have to pay the duty still.
Mr. DIXON: I thought you had not to pay it when it came from abroad?
Mr. ROWNTREE: I am dealing with the duty which is paid on sugar coming from abroad. I do appeal to the Prime Minister to do something to still further remove this tax on sugar. I think that I have shown what disastrous results it has in the homes of the very poor, and in the case of many small manufacturers. Though probably only a small number will follow the Labour party into the Lobby, I believe that the Amendment meets with general approval in the country. You cannot go on blind to what this poverty means, and I do hope from the way the Prime Minister spoke that he himself is prepared to look very closely into the question of those who are below the poverty line. I think that they are doing all that they can to raise wages and bring trades under the Trade Boards Act. I do not think that at the same time they can go on drawing large sums from the necessities of the very poor of this country. I hope, therefore, that at any rate one result of this Debate will be that the Prime Minister and the Government will be willing to do something to meet what is a growing injustice. It has been said that the alternative is that a large section of the population should go untaxed. We cannot and ought not to forget that the poor pay large sums in rates. They pay rates entirely out of proportion to their income. Therefore, even if the Labour party were eager at some future time to force this upon the Government, though it might mean that a certain number of people would not pay direct taxation, yet those people would be paying money contributions to the service of the State in the shape of rates. That must not be forgotten, and I trust that the Government will try to do something at an early date to help the millions of people—I do not think that is an exaggeration—who are living below the poverty line, and who, because of that, should be relieved from this oppressive burden of taxation.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I gather that the intention of the hon. Member who has just sat down is to vote for the Amendment, because he considers that something should be done to decrease the taxation of

1667
those in the lowest class. I do not see that he will gain his object by voting for this Amendment. We, who believe that something ought to be done for the improvement of the country, certainly are convinced that we shall gain much more by a general system of Tariff Reform than by the somewhat vague suggestions made by the hon. Member. But I rose more particularly to question the whole situation as presented by the hon. Member for Leicester. He spoke of the iniquity of having 5d. per 1b. still levied on tea, because he said that in the case of such severe indirect taxation the poor man would pay much more than the rich. I am the last person in the world to wish to compel the poor man to contribute more according to his ability to pay than the rich. It would be unjust, unfair and unreasonable. But in this matter, as in all others, I think it desirable to approach the question from the non-party point of view if possible, and the House of Commons as a whole ought to consider the matter from the standpoint of general taxation and not merely found a criticism on indirect taxation on the question how it affects tea or any other particular item. If we endeavour to look at the system of general taxation, it will be admitted that under the present system, though it may be true that the richer or the middle classes do pay less in proportion to their ability to pay on the taxation of tea, that is more than counterbalanced by the very much larger taxation which they have to pay in regard to other matters—Death Duties, Estate Duties, Income Tax, and other taxation which falls upon them. That is my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury when he attacked me the other day for saying that Income Tax was 1s. 2d. in the £. He made a severe comment on my statement, and said that it was utterly misleading, and that I knew perfectly well, and that the newspapers that supported my view knew perfectly well, that 1s. 2d. was not the average rate.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a time-honoured phraseology, that every Government up to the present, no matter of what party, always quoted Income Tax as the general rate which is put down in the Statute, and that also in former days there were rebates of taxation just as there are now, and that the actual figure that appeared in the Statute never was the precise average
1668
rate, but that it was the convenient and time-honoured phrase which was used to express the degree of taxation which was being imposed upon the nation. Until the present Government came into office nobody thought of taking exception to this phraseology at all. I believe that the reason that objection is taken by the right hon. Gentleman is that it has given rise to a damaging exposure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's methods of dealing with the tax, more especially having regard to simultaneous increases in the Estate Duties and Death Duties. If you include the Estate Duties and Death Duties under taxation of the individuals above the lowest class, you will find that, certainly in some cases, the tax, though nominally 1s. 2d. in the £, amounts to something like 2s. 6d. or 3s. or 4s. I might just as well criticise the right hon. Gentleman for using grossly inaccurate phraseology from that point of view as he can criticise me for using it in the way in which I did. I should also like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he meant by his former speeches that he was going to abolish indirect taxation altogether? Certainly the direction of his argument struck me from time to time as aiming at doing away with indirect taxation entirely. Does he mean that or does he not?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have no knowledge of the speech to which the hon. Member refers.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. CECIL: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not find it convenient to answer. I suspect that that is what in his heart of hearts he would like to do, and that he has been told very pointedly by his superior, the Prime Minister, this afternoon that that is not a proper attitude to take, and that, therefore, he cannot do it. But he criticised me as regards certain financial dogma, and he told me that the precise division between direct and indirect taxation could not be exactly laid down. I think it largely can, and I quoted Sir William Harcourt as laying down 50 per cent. as a very suitable ratio, and to that he took very great exception. If he refers to what Mr. Gladstone said, he will find that Mr. Gladstone distinctly laid down that a due proportion of taxation ought to come from indirect sources. If there is any fear that indirect taxation unduly favours

1669
the richer class of taxpayers, I, for one, should be very anxious to prevent that, and you can prevent it by taxing luxury. My right hon. Friend near me has referred to that matter this afternoon. It is perfectly easy to tax wines or cigars or other luxuries more especially enjoyed by some of the wealthier classes, and in that way regulate any undue bias against the poorer class that may arise from indirect taxation. After all, indirect taxation is less irritating than direct taxation, and less inquisitorial. Those arguments have been used from time to time for many years in and out of this House, and I should have thought that they applied to every citizen to some extent. I was struck by the speech on May 7th of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward), who disapproved of indirect taxation. He said he liked to know exactly what he was paying, and what was to be done with the money he paid. There is a great deal in that point of view. I do not at all disagree with that part of his speech; but he also went on to suggest that, from his personal point of view, it was desirable that everybody should pay something in the way of Income Tax, that there should be no exception, and that the poorer classes should be made conscious that they were contributing to the national defence and national funds, and in that manner realise their responsibility as citizens.
I should be perfectly willing to forego a certain amount of indirect taxation if the Labour party were disposed to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent and introduce a general Income Tax which would make every citizen realise his responsibility, but I do not know how far hon. Members on the Labour Benches are likely to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent; certainly not all of them follow him. I gathered from the hon. Member for Blackburn, the Mover of the Amendment, that he would not follow him, that the hon. Member for West Ham would not, and that one of the hon. Members for Bradford would not. I must take exception, too, and protest in the strongest way I can, against any notion that any citizen should be exempted from taxation altogether; nor do I at all want those who pay a large sum to pay an excessive amount in comparison with their resources and their means. I think the cardinal principle should be that every citizen should himself realise when taxation is being increased, and when the national resources are being applied to a larger
1670
expenditure, it is highly undesirable that citizens of any kind should be in a position in which they really would not care one way or the other how our national resources were being expended.
What we really want is a regulated expenditure for national defence and social reform, and we cannot get that if many of those who have votes are not required to pay taxation at all. That is not likely to cause them to impede expenditure; it would make it their whole interest, on the contrary, to increase expenditure. If they benefited by expenditure and did not have to pay, it would lead to a situation where those who paid the piper would not call the tune. What we need is a system which promotes thrift and not extravagance, which stimulates self-reliance and contentment and not jealous unrest. I earnestly hope that when any revision of our financial system is taken in hand the Labour party will consider how far it is possible to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite who advocated the introduction of a general Income Tax, graduated according to means, and to be paid by every citizen in the community. I cannot but believe that that is a more statesmanlike attitude, and one likely to lead to wiser finance than any of the sentimental propositions foisted on electors who would not care one way or the other what was done in the way of expenditure because they would not have to pay. I know that these are principles which it is perhaps not always desirable to make public, at any rate from the point of view of constituents; but, after all, it is necessary to look upon the whole question of national taxation from an independent standpoint, and to draw inferences or conclusions from a survey of taxation as a whole, and not limit it to one particular item or another particular item, seeing that the community, as a whole, is interested in a general and statesmanlike review. I hope that hon. Members who deal with this subject, limited so far as we are by the present Amendment, will consider the matter in this aspect, and not from self-interest or from mere sentimental aspects, which are not for the good of the State.
Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member for Gravesend told those of us who brought forward this Amendment that we never expected that it would be carried in this House. Most of the proposals put forward in this House are defeated. To tell us that it is a window-dressing Amendment,

1671
as the hon. Member for Gravesend did, is to exhibit some ignorance of the sources from which we draw our support. Our object in putting forward this Amendment is to give some immediate relief to the very poorest portions of the community, who are least able to bear the burden of taxation now resting upon commodities referred to in the Amendment. We get least of our support, if we get any support at all, from the class that would specially benefit if this Amendment were carried. It is from the industrially defective and industrially degraded section of the community that Toryism gets a large section of its support. We are not, therefore, window-dressing with a view to catching votes; and men of great experience like the hon. Member to whom I have referred, should know that although this is the first time on which this question has been raised in the form of an Amendment in this House, it is an old Labour policy outside this House. We have preached this principle for many years on platforms in the country, and we have put it forward in resolutions at numerous labour gatherings and congresses year by year.
We are not now for the first time plunging, as it were, with a view to startling the country and attracting some exceptional degree of electoral support for ourselves in the constituencies. We put it forward now as part of our financial policy in this House, because this is the most opportune time that has ever been available to the Labour party to submit such a proposal, and we do not shrink from facing the taunts and answering the criticisms levelled against us in regard to some votes given by some Members on this side of the House concerning proposals made by individual Members on the other side of the House. But when, since there has been a Labour party in this House, has any representative and authoritative Leader of the Conservative party made any proposal in this House to reduce any of the burdens upon food? When have we had from the Front Opposition Bench an Amendment to reduce the duties on either tea or sugar? When such Amendments have come from the other side they have come largely in the form of back-bench and unauthorised proposals, and they have been put forward in so limited a degree that, if carried, they would scarcely have benefited the poorer sections of the community at all. What is the good of tell-
1672
ing us that we should vote for a penny reduction on the Tea Duty? If we have to choose between voting for that, as has been the case on nearly every occasion, an voting on other greater proposals we wish to see carried, we choose as a matter of policy to support the larger of the proposals before the country and the House. We are not going to accommodate hon. Gentlemen opposite to the extent of playing their political game. We are committed to consistent and exhaustive support of certain big proposals still before this House.
Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the great social proposals before the House of Commons are?
Mr. CLYNES: I do not mind entertaining the House, if that be their desire, with even an elaborate statement of those great proposals, which the Noble Lord has in mind no doubt. To take the greatest of the instances which I have in my mind. If it were a question between a reduction of one penny on the Tea Duty and accepting Home Rule, I am in favour of Home Rule. That is the position which has been frequently put before us, and those proposals have been made with the clear object of trapping the Labour party into securing the return of the Tories to power. Hon. Members will have their opportunity when they succeed me of putting their views forward. They had a long enough opportunity, nearly twenty years, of a chance to lessen those duties. They used their opportunities largely to raise those duties. The burdens of taxation rested heavier upon tea and sugar when they left office than when they attained power. It does not, therefore, rest with them to taunt us with not having co-operated with them in the sense I have said, and in a way which would defeat our objects, and would destroy our pledges to our constituents, and that would play the particular political game which they wish to pursue for the time being. We press this Amendment now because the time is exceptionally opportune for this House of Commons to seriously consider it. There never was an occasion when the sovereign was worth less to the worker than it is at present. The pressure of ascending prices, the increasing difficulties confronting the working classes, the increased standard of expectation placed before them to live up to, all these things mean that he has less of the wherewithal to live the life of a decent citizen than ever

1673
before. It is computed by a reliable authority that 20s. to-day will purchase only what 15s. 9d. could purchase a matter of twelve years ago. So this period of exceptional pressure and increased cost of living resting so heavily upon the shoulders of the poor, commends itself to us as an exceptional reason for now proposing this frontal claim for the abolition of all these duties resting upon food.
It has been shown in this Debate that £60,000,000 are raised annually by process of taxation upon commodities consumed and largely used by the working classes; but in respect to £50,000,000 of that £60,000,000, we are at present making no proposal, because most of the £50,000,000 rests upon some things that could be well done without, or at any rate, which, could be consumed to a far less degree than they are even by many of the working classes. We leave aside, then, the question of cheapening drink and intoxicants, and some of the other things which may be classed as even working-class luxuries. To come to the necessities, the things of daily need, we say in respect of tea and sugar that the time is now ripe and opportune for taking at least £10,000,000 of the £60,000,000 away and giving this needed relief to the very poorest of our community. In answer to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. E. Cecil), I would say that he is totally mistaken in his view that the richer classes are paying now proportionately heavier taxes than the poor, and, terrible as it may sound, I tell him that it is the poor people who pay the rich men's taxes. Take away those £10,000,000 from the table, cheapen food commodities to that extent, and the poor people will still be paying the taxes of the rich. They do it from the fact that by their services and industry and activity and daily labour, they are mainly making the total wealth of the community year by year. Owing to industrial and social conditions, and personal ownership and control of property and of the machines and tools for making wealth, those who make the wealth do not get their full and fair proportion. So that before the workman has got his meed from the pay-box, he has left behind sufficient always to meet the needs of the rich, and to make it an easy job for them to pay whatever burden of taxation has yet been imposed.
The Amendment must at least have a word said in its favour, for it does what other proposals have avoided when sub-
1674
mitted to this House. It does not merely propose the remission of taxation and tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money as best he can, and that it is his business to do so, but it proposes and names special alternative sources of revenue. It asks you to find the £10,000,000 by taking more and more than you now do from unearned incomes and from large estates. Is there any man in this House who will rise in the course of this Debate and say that a man who has not earned an income has a right to it all. If you ask us what we mean, we say there is now a revenue definition of unearned income, and that it is quite an easy matter to ascertain definitely what the Labour party means when it speaks of incomes that are not earned. I say that we are strongly in favour of placing a far heavier burden upon those whose sources of wealth are not the outcome of personal service and industry, but whose wealth is a privilege and enjoyment accruing automatically to them without scarcely any personal endeavour or service. We were told when the Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago proposed certain additional burdens in connection with landed estates that they would immensely suffer if those burdens had to be borne and that trade would be ruined, and that rich men would leave the country, and that all manner of other dire consequences would surely follow. A little time has again disproved all those prophecies of what would happen, and indeed we have had in the past two and a half years a period of the most exceptional trade prosperity and even further enrichment of the classes aimed at by this particular Amendment. The income assessable to taxes now is £63,000,000 more than it was three years ago. The rich are not living any cheaper; they are not practising thrift in the sense that they are sacrificing to saving.
I know nothing from personal experience, but I have some little faculty of observation, and all the signs show that the rich are not living at any cheaper rate than they were three years ago. If any hon. Gentleman tells me that these increased sources of wealth to the rich are due to their thrift and to their sacrifices to saving, let me tell him that I shall struggle to believe him, but I can assure him it will be a very difficult undertaking in face of all the forms of extravagance which are common knowledge to us all, so that we cannot be expected to believe that they are in any sense sacrificing to

1675
saving. I have put it to the House that this is an exceptional opportunity for proposing this Amendment. We are willing, of course, and we rejoice at being able to admit that during the term of office of the Government, it has done something to diminish the burden of taxation upon the poor. What it has done has been outdone by other agencies at work which have caused this extraordinary pressure upon the incomes of the poor people to whom we allude. Our position as a party, I say to the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, is this: That all people should be taxed who can afford to pay taxes, and that those who clearly and admittedly stand at the subsistence level should be free of any of those national burdens that can be rightly placed upon the shoulders of those able to bear them. Why did you give a State contribution to insure poor people for conditions of illness? It was because they cannot pay the whole of it themselves. Why have you provided pensions absolutely and fully through the State for poor people? It was because you recognised the right of the old folks to have a claim on the State. You provide costly and enormous workhouses, workhouses which, I suppose, at least one man in this country is immensely proud of. You do so at enormous expense. Why do you do those things? It is because you admit that it is the right and duty of the State to come to the assistance of those who cannot help themselves. We say these people are unable to meet and make the sacrifice of paying so heavily for the food made dear as it is by the weight of taxation resting upon it. That is the reason why we shall go from this House after this Amendment has been defeated, as probably it will be, and seek to secure the public opinion that in the end will carry such an Amendment to success. This Amendment will go through the experience of all good proposals. Many men will laugh at it now, and a little later will seriously attend to it, and ultimately it will become law; for it is certain that a point will be reached where this poor section, unable to make sacrifices to a community, all better fitted than they are, will not tolerate your claim that they ought to bear a burden to meet the cost of Empire, in which they know little or nothing but sadness and labour.
Mr. COOPER: The latter part of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken do not at any rate coincide
1676
with the views laid before this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday week. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that old age pensions and contributions under the Insurance Act have been given to the people because they were unable to afford them themselves, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that speech justified the retention of these food taxes on the ground that those people were contributing to the taxation of the country, and that they were paying for the public services that they enjoy. I shall come to one or two points referred to by the hon. Member, but I want first of all to make a reference to the very important statement which has been made to-day by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's speech to-day, following upon the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech of last Monday week, make it abundantly clear to everybody in this House and to the country at large that it is no longer the policy of the Liberal party to advocate a free breakfast table and the free food, which has been such a matter of controversy in the constituencies at the last three elections. One can only wonder why it has taken the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seven years while this controversy has been going on, before they told the House of Commons and the country plainly that it is not, and is not, going to be any longer part and parcel of the Liberal policy. The Prime Minister laid down in very general terms a principle which, I confess, I very largely agree with, and that was that people who are able to earn their own living should contribute adequately to the taxation of the country. But the Prime Minister said that it was not relevant to this Debate to go into the question of what was the poverty line. In my opinion, that is absolutely the basis of the principle to which he referred. I agree that working people who are able to earn their own living should pay some fair contribution towards the expenditure of the country. But we have in this country large numbers of people who cannot in any fair sense be described as able to earn their own living. We hear to-day of men in the Midlands who earn only 18s. for a week's work as labourers in the iron trade. Nobody will suggest that a good proportion of those men do not give a very solid and fair week's work for the 18s. On the other hand, we all know that, having regard to the cost of living, those men are

1677
not in a position on such a wage to contribute a single penny to the taxation of the country. As long as you have people like that in the land, no party ought to expect or to allow them to contribute as they are doing. But the irony of the whole position is that, in proportion to their income, these very people who ought to be exempted, are contributing a larger proportion of their earnings than any other class of the community. To that extent I agree that we want to find some means, if possible, of getting rid of these taxes on food. There was another point mentioned by the Prime Minister on which I join issue with him. He made a statement to the effect that the amount raised by food taxes was on the downward grade. That is not true. The actual amount raised in 1911–12 was greater than in any of the three previous years. I have here a short quotation from the Labour party's paper, the "Daily Citizen," of the 17th January, when it went into the whole of this question:—
"Under a Liberal Government with its election plank of a free breakfast table, there has actually been an increase of well over £500,000 in food taxes in two years, and that during a time when the price of food has very much increased. This is nothing short of a national scandal."
That statement I believe to be absolutely true and borne out by the figures. My desire to speak on this occasion has largely arisen from the fact that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking last Monday week, certain Members on this side, of whom I plead to be one of the most guilty, were interrupting him and showing a great deal of irritation. It is only right that, having the opportunity, I should attempt to justify the feeling which I exhibited on that occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opened that speech, which, bearing in mind the particular views that he expressed, everybody recognises was an extremely important one, by pointing out how cheap was this method of moving a reduction of taxation and then going to the constituencies and taking credit for it by saying, "Look at the taxes that we proposed to abolish!" That was not a very kind criticism to level against his supporters below the Gangway, who alone are responsible for moving this Amendment. But contrast this with what many of us have had to face in the constituencies ever since the year 1906. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his own conscience say that this cheap method of dealing with political problems in the constituencies is not one of which his own party have been at least as guilty as any
1678
Member on this side of the House? On 28th December, 1905, he himself, speaking at Bangor, said:—
"It is wicked folly that men should make a Political gamble with the cupboard of the poor."
That is perfectly true. He intended to direct that remark particularly to the Unionist party, but I think he should bear in mind that for the last seven years his own supporters have been appealing to the people very largely on the cry of a free breakfast table, and pointing out that if they supported the Unionist party they would be voting in favour of an increase in the cost of all the necessaries of life. I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be ignorant of Leaflet No. 2029, published in 1906 by the Liberal Publication Department, which concludes with these words:—
"If you return the Tories to power you will find that all the necessaries of life will go up in price."
The next point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was when, referring to the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), he said:—
"Thus we have a new policy from Lancashire—a tariff of 20 per cent."
We on these benches were naturally irritated by that remark, because unfortunately these statements get quoted throughout the length and breadth of the land at a time when it is impossible to contradict them. But that statement was purely the imagination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I can prove, not by the views of any Member on this side, but entirely by the views of his own party. He followed that statement by these words:—
"I venture to say that without at least a tariff of 17 per cent. on foreign manufactured goods you would not get £10,000,000."
If the right hon. Gentleman will turn back to the issue of the "Daily Chronicle" on the 5th April last, he will find these words:—
"Twenty million pounds is roughly the amount which would be derived from duties by such an arrangement as Captain Tryon proposed in the House of Commons during the Tariff Reform Debate the other evening."
He might even appeal to an hon. Member who has the confidence of most Members on both sides in matters of statistics, the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Chiozza Money), who has made this statement:—
"It is no answer to the Tariff Reform argument to say that we cannot get revenue from protective duties. We can very easily do so. Ten per cent. on manufactured goods would yield £13,000,000 or so a year—a great part of the sum required. There is no question the Treasury would get its revenue."

1679
Knowing these views of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, we on this side who hold very strong opinions on the subject, naturally felt a good deal of resentment when we heard the suggestion from so high and responsible a source that a tariff of at least 20 per cent. would be required to find the money.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Fifteen per cent.
Mr. COOPER: There was one particular statement repeated several times which I think requires a proper explanation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
"We have reduced by £5,000,000 at least the taxation which we denounced when out of office."
I am glad to have the admission that he did denounce these taxes. The statement is not without its element of truth, but there is another side to it, as I shall show. The statement is only half the truth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring to the rate of the taxes, a point that was very forcibly put before the House by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who said:—
"It is not whether the tax upon tea is less per pound than it was seven years ago. The point is, what is the total amount being paid in taxation by the working classes. The amount which is being paid in taxes by the working people of the country is very much higher to-day than it was when the Government assumed office."
The £5,000,000 reduction to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred is, I believe, entirely made up by the reduction of the Sugar Duty in 1908.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And tea.
Mr. COOPER: That is true: I had overlooked that. I want, however, to point out a very interesting and curious fact, namely, that when the Sugar Tax was reduced in 1908 from 4s. 2d. to 1s. 10d. it did not have the effect, as one would naturally have anticipated, of modifying the burden and reducing the price of sugar. The actual fact in this case is that, taking Sauerbeck's average prices, £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 more has been paid for sugar since the tax was taken off than was paid before 1908. This is not due to the law of supply and demand, as I have often been assured. In the year 1911, for example, we imported 5,500,000 cwts. more than we did in 1908, when the duty was reduced, and yet in every year since 1908 the wholesale price has increased.
Mr. LOUGH: Not since the Brussels Convention was denounced.
Mr. COOPER: I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he is an authority on the subject, but I feel safe in contradicting him when I have before me the figures from the 59th Statistical Abstract. In 1908 Sauerbeck's average price, which I believe is the wholesale price, was 9s. 9d.; 1909, 10s. 3d.; 1910, 11s.; 1911 is not given.
Mr. LOUGH: 1912 shows a great reduction.
Mr. COOPER: I was not aware of that. These are the latest Government figures at my disposal. I am very glad if the fact is as the right hon. Gentleman states. Still, will he explain to me how in each of the years 1909 and 1910, with an increased importation and with the duty reduced from 4s. 2d. to 1s. 10d., the price has gone up? It is a very curious fact which I, at any rate, cannot explain, except on the supposition that there is some agreement or trust manipulating the prices. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway constantly tell us that the monopolist capitalists are always combining to take advantage of and rob the people of any advantage of reduced taxation; or they say, on the other hand, that if 5 per cent. is put on, the monopolists and the trust magnates increase the price by at least 7 per cent. to make up for it. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, to believe that when we interrupted him the other night we had some justification for our interruptions. There is one other point which I would like to mention in passing, because I think some useful information might be given to the House on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say we were the lightest food-taxed country of any of the leading countries. He said:—
"The taxation of food in this country is less than that in any other great country in the world. The taxation of food in this country is £10,000,000, in the United States £14,000,000, in France £16,000,000, and in Germany £30,000,000."
In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman omitted to point out this fact, that this £14,000,000 in the United States, while it is a burden upon the people, is a burden that is borne by double the number of people to what it is here—that, of course does make a great difference to the statement. When we come to Germany, I admit I am in some difficulty in really being able to throw any further light upon the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for this reason: that the

1681
latest figures I have been able to get of Germany from any Government Blue Book are the averages for the years 1905–8. The average of these years of the taxation of food, drink and tobacco in Germany is £25,000,000.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is that date?
Mr. COOPER: I have the figures here. They are the average annual income on the total imports of food, drink and tobacco. I will give the whole of the figures if the right hon. Gentleman wishes it for the years 1905–8. The average annual value of total of food, drink and tobacco is £118,614,000, of dutiable imports £108,667,000, and the average annual amount of duty collected is £24,922,000. That is the amount for drink and tobacco, as well as food. There is £15,000,000 raised by Customs in this country on food, drink, and tobacco. That is the point. I am for the moment speaking of Customs, and not of Excise. I have only the Customs figures for Germany, and I say they raise roughly £25,000,000 on food, drink, and tobacco. When the right hon. Gentleman gave us the figure of £30,000,000, I think I am safe in saying that that figure included drink and tobacco, which ought to have been mentioned, whereas the figure in the case of the United Kingdom, namely £10,000,000 or so, was food only. I want to say one or two words on the broad principle of this Amendment before the House. We have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, backed up by the Prime Minister to-day, the statement that the retention of the food duties is necessary. We have had it that it is not only a necessary but a proper policy for this country to follow in order to make the people contribute to the taxation of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the food taxes must stand because the working man has political power, and that he must pay at any rate some fair proportion.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his interesting speech, but I did not say that the food taxes must stand. My contention was that the working man ought to contribute towards the taxation of the country, and that until there is a fair substitute for raising the same contribution out of the working man, then the food taxes would have to stand; and that
1682
until there was another and better method of raising the contribution.
Mr. COOPER: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement, because it is quite true, as he says, that his statement was as he puts it. But I think there is nothing in his speech in regard to the latter part of what he has just said.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEdissented.
Mr. COOPER: Then I withdraw that statement altogether, but I was thinking, when the right hon. Gentleman was making that statement, that we were going on a new basis upon which political power in this country was to be given to the people: Is political power, whether by this method or any other, to depend upon the contribution that a man makes to the expenditure of the country? On that basis are you going to give a rich man a hundred votes or a hundred times the political power if he pays a hundred times the amount of taxation? Otherwise I fail to see any logic in the principle that is there laid down. Further, I would like to ask, if that line is to be taken, what becomes of the duties of citizenship? What becomes of democracy? What becomes of the principle, which I believe both sides of the House adhere to, that we should tax people according to their ability to pay? That is a principle I would always have in mind. I believe it is a sound one. I think we are all agreed upon it. If it is true, I do, in support of a good many of the remarks that have fallen from the Labour Benches, want to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer—for, after all, only someone in his position can work out a scheme for dealing with this matter—ordinary Members cannot do it; they have not the means—the fact, and I do ask him to realise it, that the burden on so many people in this country as regards taxation and the cost of living is greater than we have a right, to impose upon them.
I think it is interesting here to point out a fact which has never been put in the concrete form in which I am going to put it. In his speech in this House, on 13th March, the hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the value of a sovereign, and he stated—rightly or wrongly—that the sovereign to-day was not worth more than about 14s. I find in the "Daily News" of 20th February of this year that the hon. Member for East Northants, dealing with the same subject, laid it

1683
down that the sovereign had deprecated to 16s. 3d. The period taken by the hon. Member for Blackburn was, I think, five years, while it was fifteen years in the case of the "Daily News" article. I cannot be very far wrong, therefore, if I take the figures at 16s. That will be on the safe side. That means a depreciation in the earnings of the working people of this country of 20 per cent. We know, further, from the Census of Production in 1907, that about £800,000,000 is paid out weekly in wages. If you take 20 per cent. off that £800,000,000, or any other approximate figure, you get £100,000,000, or £160,000,000 reduction in the spending power of the working people. Against that, I admit you must put any general increases that have been made during the last few years. But nobody will think that any increases of wages will touch anything like £50,000,000, let alone £100,000,000 or £160,000,000. I will not go any further into these figures, but I do think that it is an interesting way of looking at the burdens of the people to-day, for they—rightly or wrongly—believe—they do in the Midlands, anyhow—that their burdens are getting greater than they are able to bear. There is a feeling amongst working people that something has got to be done by way of increasing their earning capacity, preferably by employers of labour, by capitalists, and those who have the means, rather than that they should turn to Parliament for redress.
My concluding remarks, having regard to the Amendment before the House, are that I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle of getting rid of these food taxes altogether, especially as they serve no purpose. I cannot suggest here, and I am not going to do it, what we could do under another system for the Empire, and especially for the workpeople in this country by a particular system of taxation. These food taxes do no good to anybody. They are indirect taxes, and I do say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be, in my opinion, acting in a right and proper manner and agreeably to the interests of this country, if so soon as he can find the means of raising the money in some other direction that is good as a whole for the community, he will free this country from these food taxes. I believe that would be an action that would meet with approval from both sides of the House. I do say this in conclusion, that one does regret—and I have made this remark more than
1684
once, that the Labour party have found it necessary in putting an Amendment like this before the House—we all know that is is due to the political system under which we are working, it is not their fault it is rather the fault of the party system—to find it necessary to go out of their way to scheme some trick by which they can put wording into the Amendment that prevents us voting with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members on the Labour benches may smile at that statement, but will they deny it? If they do, I challenge them to leave out the latter part of the Amendment, and see what will happen!
Mr. C. E. PRICE: The Prime Minister, in the remarks that he made, which we listened to with very great interest, has given a record of what the Government has done in regard to the finances of the country, and the reduction of taxation. He asked, "Is not that a good record?" I am perfectly certain there is not a Member on this side of the House, or on the Labour Benches that is not proud of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the way in which they have managed the finances of the country. Therefore, anything we happen to say in regard to this Amendment, I hope will not be taken as any indication that we are dissatisfied with what they have done. I do not think we can be dissatisfied, when in point of fact every Chancellor of the Exchequer in Europe is proud of the present Prime Minister and Chancellor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, the Chancellor of Germany made a very special reference to the time when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I can give some quotations if necessary. But I can say what has been done. Take the year 1910. France had then a deficit of eight millions, Germany a deficit of ten millions, Russia of nine millions, and the United States of twelve millions. Where were we? We had a handsome surplus. If that does not prove the advantage of our financial arrangements made by, first of all, the present Prime Minister, and then by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not know what will. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I wish to tender them my thanks for what they have done in the past. But I am bound to say that the speeches which have been delivered by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given many of us on

1685
this side of the House very great concern. The Prime Minister said that he has not pledged himself to a free breakfast, table. That may be true. There is no man more careful about his pledges than the Prime Minister. What is certain is that if he makes a pledge, he will stick to it. But a great many other men on this side of the House have given pledges. Let me read the speeches of one or two hon. Gentlemen before the Liberal party came into office. The President of the Board of Trade in 1904, when the Tea Tax was increased from 6d. to 8d., said:—
"It would practically deprive these people of tea for one day in the week. The object the Opposition (that was the Liberal party) had in view, was to revert to the position that we were in not many years ago, when we got very near a free breakfast table. He hoped before long public opinion would be so advanced as to enable them to do so."
The late Lord Chancellor, also in 1904, said:—
"It was a tax which pressed really upon the poorest of the poor in the country. It fell mainly upon poor widows with children, and upon those who were hardly able to find subsistence for themselves."
7.0 P.M.
The Secretary for War also denounced the tax, and, therefore, whatever the Prime Minister himself has done, I think the party as a whole is committed to give a free breakfast table. Before 1906, and during the time that the great controversy was going on in the country on Free Trade, I made perhaps more speeches on Free Trade than any other man. I was free to do so, because I had just retired from business, and during the whole of that time I denounced the taxes on food. There is one quotation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham which I should like to give:—
"I suggest it would be some compensation to the poorest of the poor if a reduction was made in the cost of tea through any increase that might have to be put on some other article."
All the speeches delivered, including those of the Prime Minister during that great campaign, were denunciations of the taxes upon food, and every argument which went to show the inadvisability of putting a tax, however small, upon wheat applies equally to taxes upon tea and sugar. I hold, therefore, we are pledged in every sense—I at any rate am pledged—to do all I can to abolish these taxes, and I shall vote for this Amendment. Many people speak as if the working classes need not consume tea and sugar. There was a Return given on the Motion of Sir George Lewis, on the 13th May, 1861, when an inquiry was made as to what articles of food were consumed by the working
1686
classes, and although the taxes upon tea and sugar at that time were extremely high, when you would think that the working classes would avoid articles so heavily taxed, the Return showed that one-eighth of the entire earnings of the working classes in the Metropolis of London were actually spent upon tea and sugar. That shows the value the poor put upon tea and sugar as articles of consumption.
Let me come to the tax on tea. If I may say so, with great respect, the Prime Minister did not meet the argument advanced in support of this Amendment. The main argument used was that the least tax upon tea and sugar was a tax upon persons who earned very small wages. Figures were given of the number of people earning 10s., 15s., 20s., and 25s. a week, and the point was made: Was it fair to maintain a tax of 80 per cent. upon articles that were used by people earning such small wages? We say it is unfair to maintain a tax upon articles which the poorest of the poor have to use. When you come to the tax upon sugar you enter an entirely different region, because it is a tax not only upon the working classes but it is a tax upon industry. Everybody knows that when a tax of ½d. was put upon sugar manufacturers using sugar were obliged to advance the price of the article they were manufacturing. In my trade—the biscuit trade—at that time all the manufacturers of the country came to an agreement. Before that there was very keen competition in our trade. That also applied to confectioners and chocolate manufacturers, and when the tax was put upon sugar there was a general agreement and a general advance in the price of commodities. Everyone knows that there is an advance in the price of the article beyond the price of the raw material that the tax warrants. When there is strong competition, and duties are put upon articles, opportunity is taken to increase the price of the commodity in order to recoup the manufacturers for what they have lost by the increase in the price of the raw material, and the result is that by maintaining these taxes the working people are paying much more than the taxes themselves warrant.
One other reason why I should like to see these taxes taken off is this: In 1906 the Liberal party were returned to power, above all things, to defend Free Trade. That issue was greater than anything else that was then before the country, and I look upon the defence of Free Trade as

1687
most important. When, therefore, we were returned to power, I think it was our duty, above all things, to have taken the taxes off food, so that whenever a change of Government was brought about it would be absolutely impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter our existing fiscal system. Therefore we should have taken these taxes off. I am very sorry to speak in this manner, but I do so because I want the Government to keep us honest. I denounced taxes upon food, and therefore, when I go back to the different parts of Scotland again to defend Free Trade, the people will say to me, "You have been in power for seven years, you have done nothing and you come back to us preaching the same story." I do not want to do that. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it possible, and as early as possible, to take these taxes off food.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I have listened with great interest to this Debate and to no speech with greater interest than that of the hon. Member for York. He appealed to the Government not to tax those who were, as he described it, below the poverty line, and his strong argument to my mind was that you are putting a discount upon the physical efficiency of the workers of the country. I entirely agree with that view, and I cannot help thinking that our system of taxation does not sufficiently take into account the fact that after all the best national investment we can possibly make is to promote the healthy human lives of our fellow countrymen, and so far as this particular datum line is concerned, I for one hold very strongly the view, representing as I believe I do the very poorest of the whole of the population of this country, that any further taxation, in fact that the existing taxation upon the necessaries of life which the poor have to meet, is more than they can at present afford and seriously affects their physical efficiency. But when we are asked whether we are prepared to vote for this Amendment it seems to me we must necessarily look at the two sides of the Amendment and consider, first of all, whether we are prepared to abandon these so-called food taxes, and on the other hand, whether we are prepared to adopt the proposed alternative method of raising the revenue which the country would thereby lose. To my mind the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman the ex-
1688
Chancellor of the Exchequer, have based their theories upon an entire fallacy. They suggested, first of all, that the food taxes are equal in their incidence upon all sections of the population which I entirely deny, and secondly, that the food taxes are the chief contributions of the working classes to the revenues of the country, and therefore the chief burden which they as tax payers have to bear. In the first place, as I think the hon. Member for Leicester pointed out, as regards the incidence of such taxation, a tax which is levied to the same amount upon all descriptions of tea whether it costs 1s. or 3s. a pound cannot be equal in its incidence. I go further and say that in fact this tax is more onerous in the case of the poorer classes than in the case of the wealthier classes, because in the former case the tax upon a pound of the same quality of tea is considerably more when the working class consumer has to buy it, because it is in fact sold in smaller quantities by ounces and not by the pound, and the burden in the case of a poorer consumer is very much greater. Not only is the burden of taxation in the case of the ounce of tea greater than in the case of the pound, but the actual cost of the ounce is considerably more than in the case of the same quantity when purchased in larger amounts by the richer classes.
As regards this particular Amendment I for one am entirely in favour of the first part of it, but to my mind this taxation of food which every class of the community is bound to consume is most unequal in its operation, is most damaging to the efficiency of the nation and is very bad political and national economy. It is suggested that this is the chief burden which now falls upon the shoulders of the poorer people in this country and that at the present time they have found this burden more onerous than any other burden of taxation. I entirely dispute that proposition. During the last four years this burden has remained constant, but the position of the working classes and the burden of the maintenance of the home has grown much more serious and so far from improving has got considerably worse and the reason is that the cost of living, as it is called, has steadily increased. To what is this increase in the cost of living due? It is not due to this so-called taxation of food. It is not due as I suggest to indirect taxation at all, it is mainly due to

1689
the fact that the working classes in this country ultimately are the people who pay the greater part of the taxes which in the first place are levied upon the rich. When you have a high Income Tax, as we have at the present time, it necessarily means that the really rich people in this country, and the really rich people in this country are the big manufacturers, devise means of taking that burden off their own shoulders and throwing it upon the shoulders of the more defenceless portion of the population. They do it, unless there is very serious foreign competition, by increasing the cost of their products. Consequently the higher cost has to be paid by the community generally, but particularly and most onerously by the working population of the country. The greater portion of the increase which has fallen during recent years upon the working classes is not in consequence of indirect taxation upon food, but the direct result of an increase in the cost of the products produced by manufacturers, and this has thrown a greater burden on the working classes by the increased cost of living. I have investigated this question in my own Constituency. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested with regard to the Tobacco Tax and the Spirit Tax that, assuming this Amendment were carried, all those who did not happen to smoke tobacco or drink spirits would not contribute a single farthing to the revenue. I suggest that when you have a high Income Tax causing increased cost of living, those men are, in fact, contributing the greater part of the taxation through the increased cost of the necessaries of life. In any case you cannot, as a matter of political economy, exempt the working classes from taxation by merely saying that you are not going to impose it either upon Income Tax directly or indirectly upon such articles as tea, sugar, whisky, and tobacco.
When the Prime Minister suggested that taxation upon whisky and tobacco was in the nature of sumptuary laws, I differ from him. Articles such as tobacco and spirits cannot be regarded as extravagant luxuries of the poorer classes, and if the word "sumptuary" has any meaning it can only apply to extravagant luxuries. So far as it is necessary to maintain indirect taxation, I am in favour of its being of a sumptuary character. I should like to see indirect taxation levied upon such articles as motor cars which are not used for trade, diamonds, and even extravagant entertainments. That was just the kind
1690
of taxation which Jeremy Bentham, the great Liberal jurist, suggested in order to produce a healthy moral effect, and in order to direct wealth into a healthy channel. For my part, I disapprove entirely of indirect taxation, except upon luxuries which are of an extravagant character, because the burden is most unequal and unfair, and many persons who ought to bear it evade it altogether. As a matter of logic, how is it fair for those who do not happen to smoke tobacco or drink whisky that they should, in fact, be exempted from a serious burden of taxation which falls upon other people who have to pay because they happen to indulge in that so-called extravagance?
I should take no exception to this Amendment—in fact, I should vote for it—if the Proposer would only suggest some more obvious taxation of the working classes as an alternative. I am afraid that a large portion of the community will never realise the responsibility of government, and realise that they are contributing a large proportion of the taxation of the country, unless it is sufficiently obvious on the face of it. I suggest that the working classes are contributing at least half, and probably two-thirds, of the whole taxation of the country, but it is not sufficiently obvious to them. As a matter of logic and fairness, I think we shall eventually come to the time when every single man in this country who has an income above the level of subsistence will pay Income Tax, graduated in such a way that the burden upon him shall not be unequal to his ability to pay. Against this proposal it has been argued that it would be difficult to collect and that the cost of collection would be very heavy. I think that is a consideration so unimportant that we might discount it altogether. As regards the smallest incomes it is said that it would not produce sufficient to repay the cost of collection, but I think that is a matter of small importance compared with the moral effect upon each individual in the fact that he will be paying according to his ability to pay; he will be paying direct taxation according to his income, not based upon any indirect mode of assessing his fair proportion of taxation, and, although in some few cases the tax received might not justify the cost of collection, I think that in the long run this is logically the most defensible tax and would produce at least as much revenue as these extremely vexatious taxes upon food.

1691
Any Chancellor of the Exchequer putting forward such a proposal could not possibly be met with any serious criticisms, because on the face of it every single man in the country would be taxed according to his ability to pay. Another objection I have to this Amendment is that it does not make clear what is the meaning of unearned income. At the present time the rich manufacturer, who often takes very little part in the conduct of his business, is treated as though his income were earned. On the other hand, the comparatively poor agricultural landowner who contributes probably three-fourths of the capital embarked in the industry of agriculture would be treated as being the recipient of unearned income, although in fact he may participate more largely in the development of his property and the industry carried on upon it than the rich manufacturer who is so much better equipped to pay any tax imposed upon him. It is with the greatest regret that I find it impossible, while entirely agreeing with the first part of this Amendment, to vote for it, because the hon. Gentleman who has proposed it has not sufficiently indicated what is the alternative method of obvious taxation which the working classes in the future would have to pay.
Mr. BIGLAND: I have listened with great attention to the arguments in favour of this Amendment, and I find myself strongly in sympathy with what the hon. Member for Blackburn has said. I think, however, that his remedy is one which we cannot accept. Some of the points which have formed the basis of discussion and argument in this House, I think, might, with the united wisdom of both parties, provide a solution of the difficulty which the hon. Member raises. I have taken down one or two of the sentences which the hon. Member used. He said that beyond all question the national taxation paid by the working people is unfair and excessive, and the method by which it is raised is vicious and unjust. I agree that the way in which our Customs are now fixed is vicious and unjust, because we force the consumers to pay the whole of that taxation. A more interesting statement followed immediately from the hon. Member. He says that the State has no right to tax any individual until it has ensured that the individual is able by honest labour to maintain himself and those dependent upon him in a degree of physical efficiency, health, and comfort. That was the point on which the hon.
1692
Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) spoke so strongly, and I would like to make one remark with regard to his statement.
The hon. Member for York rather inferred in this House that the cause of the great number of people going out of the sugar boiling industry was the fact that the Sugar Tax remained at 1s. 10d. per cwt. During the time the hon. Member talked of there had been fluctuations in price, not of 1s. 10d. per cwt., but as much as 6s. and 8s. per cwt., and surely that has a far greater effect on the trade than the 1s. 10d. which still remains on the Statute Book as a tax on sugar. The Member for York said he knew something about sugar. May I also say that I know something about it? We have had some practical talk from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. C. E. Price), who knows something about the question of the taxation of sugar. May I bring to the House one matter which I consider of the very greatest importance, and it is that it has now been proved by one of the greatest nations in the world that the giving of a preference on an article of food to a country specially adapted for growing it, has been a great benefit. By giving a preferential rate of £2 a ton on their duty as against sugar grown on British or German soil, the United States have proved for 100,000,000 people that they ensure them a cheap supply of sugar for years to come. At the time of the Spanish-American war the American Government said to Cuba, "We will take all the sugar you can grow at £2 a ton less duty, than we can buy sugar from Germany or from British sources." At that time the production of sugar in Cuba was 600,000 tons a year, and the very fact that 100,000,000 people agreed to pay £2 a ton more to Cuba than to any other country, had the effect of an enormous volume of increased industry and employment, the opening up of new plantations, the building of roads and railways, in order to supply that demand, and in the short period of eleven years the production has gradually advanced until this year we expect to receive from Cuba not 600,000 tons but 2,200,000 tons of sugar. I think we really ought to pass a vote of thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United States for having solved the great problem of how to reduce the cost of living by giving a preference to a particular soil, a part of the world which they knew was capable of producing what they required.

1693
I claim that, whereas the price of sugar this time last year was somewhere about 16s. or 17s. per cwt., quoted on the Hamburg market, it is to-day quoted at 9s. 6d., and I claim that that price is going to be kept down by the increased production in sugar which was brought about by the farseeing policy of the United States in trying to provide for 100,000,000 people one of the necessaries of life at the lowest possible price. If that has taken place, and it is the first instance on record of a great nation giving a preference to a country which is specially adapted in soil and climate to produce a certain thing, are we wrong in our contention? We can discuss this matter to-day calmly because the food question is not to be brought up as a political issue at the next election. The cost of living has increased whilst the rate of wages has not increased, and the Labour party asked, "Can you bring about any betterment?" I say that we can. I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country is in the most responsible and onerous position of any man in the world, because his policy may affect the well-being of a greater number of people than the policy of any other man in any part of the world. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) made rather an extraordinary statement with regard to the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:—
"You cannot dissociate social policy from taxation, and any Chancellor in levying taxation ought to have two purposes in view."
I do not blame our present Chancellor, because previous Chancellors all have had one object in view, and that was to raise revenue. I say that in future all Chancellors of the Exchequer must keep two points in view. They must safeguard the wage limit of the worker, if it is possible to do so, in the taxation they put upon the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the United States had two objects in view with regard to his preferential duty on sugar. He wanted to reduce the cost of living to the people and at the same time to raise revenue. Many people on the opposite side of the House tell us that we are unbusinesslike and unsound in our financial statement when we claim that we can do both. It has been proved in this instance that it can be done. Will any man dare say that if this country gave a preference to the British Empire to grow its food it would not increase the production of food to such an extent that the actual cost of that food in ten years would
1694
be less than it is to-day? I say that the only way I, as a business may, can reduce the cost of living to my own people is to increase the production. That is absolutely necessary, and I maintain as a sound business man, that I can do it. If I were president or chairman of the great Co-operative Society, my first object would be that all the members of that society should have the necessities of life at the lowest possible price. I would use some of that £14,000,000 held in Manchester to-day as a reserve of the Co-operative Society to develop the increased production of the things the people want. This very Government, in regard to cotton, have applied the same principle. They said, "If we guarantee £3,000,000 sterling to a certain industry we shall increase the production and reduce the price."
We have got to work for two things; an increased rate of wages for the people of this country and an increased volume of food products within the Empire. Up to 1893 I held the same views as the hon. Member for Blackburn. I changed my views because in that year a steamer arrived in this country, having crossed the Equator with perishable food products in the same state of sound good readiness for consumption as they left a port 12,000 miles away. The whole food question, to my mind, scientifically altered from that moment. We had the whole of the southern part of the world, as well as the western and northern parts of the world, from which we could draw supplies. It became possible from that moment, as far as I could see, by a preferential rate to those parts of the world where the soil and climate are particularly adapted to increase the volume of production to such an extent, as to steady the market and to gather for our own people a food supply at a moderate rate. I say to the party who are going to vote for this Amendment to-night, that if we take that wide-world view of the position with regard to food products, and also with regard to the possibilities in this little country of ours, of so adjusting our taxation as to have two objects, one to safeguard the wage limit and the other to collect revenue, that the two objects can be followed in one and the same way, and I say that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has followed that course we shall not hear any more of wages of 25s. per week, but we shall hear more likely of a reasonable 1s. per hour, instead of 5d., for the workers of this country. And

1695
then there will not be the haggling as to whether in a whole year a family has paid a few pence on this or that tax which was necessary for the upkeep of the country. We cannot decrease the expenditure, but we can so collect our revenue as to make it absolutely certain that the volume of employment in this country will be vastly increased, and in that same mode of collection of revenue we can also guarantee
that the volume of production of the necessaries of the people shall be vastly increased.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 174.

Division No. 105.]

AYES.

[7.38 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Duffy, William J.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Adamson, William

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Agnew, Sir George William

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Joyce, Michael

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Keating, Matthew

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

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Kelly, Edward

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kilbride, Denis

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Falconer, James

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

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Barnes, George N.

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lardner, James C. R.

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Ffrench, Peter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Field, William

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

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Fitzgibbon, John

Leach, Charles

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Levy, Sir Maurice

Back, Arthur Cecil

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Bentham, George Jackson

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lundon, Thomas

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Gill, A. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

Ginnell, Laurence

Lynch, A. A.

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone W. G. C.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Boland, John Pius

Glanville, H. J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

McGhee, Richard

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Goldstone, Frank

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

Brace, William

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Macpherson, James Ian

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Brunner, John F. L.

Griffith, Ellis Jones

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Bryce, J. Annan

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

M'Kean, John

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Burke, E Haviland-

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hackett, John

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

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Manfield, Harry

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hardie, J. Keir

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

Chancellor, H. G.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Meagher, Michael

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Menzies, Sir Walter

Clough, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Middlebrook, William

Clynes, John R.

Hayward, Evan

Molloy, Michael

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hazleton, Richard

Molteno, Percy Alpert

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mooney, John J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Morgan, George Hay

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henry, Sir Charles

Morison, Hector

Cotton, William Francis

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Muldoon, John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Munro, Robert

Crooks, William

Hodge, John

Murphy, Martin J.

Crumley, Patrick

Hogg, David C.

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Cullinan, John

Hodge, James Myles

Nolan, Joseph

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

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Holt, Richard Durning

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Nuttall, Harry

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dawes, J. A.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Delany, William

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

O'Doherty, Philip

Devlin, Joseph

John, Edward Thomas

O'Donnell, Thomas

Dillon, John

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Dowd, John

Donelan, Captain A.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Grady, James

Doris, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

O'Malley, William

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Toulmin, Sir George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Shee, James John

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Robinson, Sidney

Verney, Sir Harry

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Parker, James (Halifax)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wardle, George J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Rowlands, James

Waring, Walter

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Rowntree, Arnold

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Watt, Henry Anderson

Pointer, Joseph

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Webb, H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Scanlan, Thomas

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradesten)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)

Sheehy, David

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wiles, Thomas

Pringle, William M. R.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Radford. G. H.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Snowden, Philip

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Winfrey, Richard

Reddy, Michael

Sutherland, John

Wing, Thomas

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sutton, John E.

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

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Randall, Athelstan

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Richards, Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Thomas, J. H.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Keswick, Henry

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

King, J.

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Denniss, E. R. B.

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Baird, John Lawrence

Duke, Henry Edward

Lewisham, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

Falle, Bertram Godfrey

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Fell, Arthur

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

Barnston; Harry

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Barton, William

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

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

Forster, Henry William

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gardner, Ernest

Mackinder, Halford J.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Martin, Joseph

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gilmour, Captain J.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Been, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Goldman, C. S.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Bigland, Alfred

Goldsmith, Frank

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bird, Alfred

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Blair, Reginald

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrell, Philip

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Grant, J. A.

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

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Greene, Waiter Raymond

Mount, William Arthur

Boyton, James

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

Newman, John R. P.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gwynne, R. S. (Essex, Eastbourne)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Bull, Sir William James

Haddock, George Bahr

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Butcher, John George

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Campion, W. R.

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Perkins, Walter F.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Harris, Henry Percy

Peto, Basil Edward

Cassel, Felix

Helmsley, Viscount

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Cator, John

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Randles, Sir John S.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hibbert, Sir Henry P.

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Cave, George

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cecil, Lord H ugh (Oxford University)

Hoare, S. J. G.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Royds, Edmund

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Ingleby, Holcombe

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Courthope, George Loyd

Jowett, Frederick William

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

1698

1699

Spear, Sir John Ward

Touche, George Alexander

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Stanier, Beville

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Valentia, Viscount

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Starkey, John Ralph

Walker, Colonel William Hall

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

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Stewart, Gershom

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

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

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

Wright, Henry Finherbert

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Weigell, Captain A. G.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

Winterton and Sir J. D. Rees.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 38.

Division No. 106.]

AYES.

[7.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Donelan, Captain A.

Kilbride, Denis

Acland, Francis Dyke

Doris, William

King, Joseph

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Duffy, William J.

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

Agnew, Sir George William

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Lardner, James C. R.

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

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Leach, Charles

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Levy, Sir Maurice

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Falconer, James

Lundon, Thomas

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Farrell, James Patrick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lynch, A. A.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Field, William

McGhee, Richard

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Fitzgibbon, John

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

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Macpherson, James Ian

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Ginnell, Laurence

M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

Gladstone, W. G. C.

M'Kean, John

Bentham, G. J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

Boland, John Pius

Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

Booth, Frederick Handel

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Manfield, Harry

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

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

Brunner, John F. L.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meagher, Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

Hackett, John

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Middlebrook, William

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

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Molloy, Michael

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cave George

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mooney, John J.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hayward, Evan

Morgan, George Hay

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

Hazleton, Richard

Morison, Hector

Chancellor, Henry George

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen)

Muldoon, John

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henry, Sir Charles

Munro, Robert

Clancy, John Joseph

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

Murphy, Martin J.

Clough, William

Higham, John Sharp

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Nolan, Joseph

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Hogg, David C.

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hogge, James Myles

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Nuttall, Harry

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cotton, William Francis

Hope, Harry (Bute)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cowan, W. H.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Doherty, Philip

Crumley, Patrick

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Donnell, Thomas

Cullinan, John

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

O'Dowd, John

Dalrymple, Viscount

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

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

John, Edward Thomas

O'Malley, William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Shee, James John

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Delany, William

Joyce, Michael

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Keating, Matthew

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Devlin, Joseph

Kelly, Edward

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Dillon, John

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walton, Sir Joseph

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Pollard, Sir George H.

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

Waring, Walter

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Warner, Sir Thomas Ceurtenay

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pringle, William M. R.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Wett, Henry Anderson

Radford, G. H.

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

Webb, H.

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Sheehy, David

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Sherwell, Arthur James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Whitehouse, John Howard

Reddy, Michael

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Spicer, Rt. H on. Sir Albert

Wiles, Thomas

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Sutherland, John E.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Winfrey, Richard

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Tennant, Harold John

Wing, Thomas

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Toulmin, Sir George

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Robinson, Sidney

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Verney, Sir Harry

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Roe, Sir Thomas

NOES.

Adamson, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Jowett, Frederick William

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Barnes, George N.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Snowden, Philip

Barton, William

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Sutton, John E.

Brace, William

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Martin, Joseph

Thomas, James Henry

Clynes, John R.

Morrell, Philip

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

O'Grady, James

Wardle, George J.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Gill, A. H.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glanville, H. J.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Hardie, J. Keir

Richards, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Pointer and Mr. Goldstone

Hodge, John

Rowntree, Arnold

Mr. LLOYD GEORGEclaimed "That the Main Question be now put."
Main Question put accordingly.
The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 171.

Division No. 107.]

AYES.

[7.59 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Falconer, James

Acland, Francis Dyke

Chancellor, Henry George

Farrell, James Patrick

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Agnew, Sir George William

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ffrench, Peter

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Clancy, John Joseph

Field, William

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

Clough, William

Fitzgibbon, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Cotton, William Francis

Glanville, H. J.

Barton, William

Cowan, W. H.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Crumley, Patrick

Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

Cullinan, John

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Bentham, G. J.

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

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

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Boland, John Pius

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

Hackett, John

Booth, Frederick Handel

Dawes, J. A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Delany, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Devlin, Joseph

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Brunner, John F. L.

Dillon, John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bryce, J. Annan

Donelan, Captain A.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Doris, William

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

Burke, E. Havlland-

Duffy, William J.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Hayden, John Patrick

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Edwards, Jahn Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Hayward, Evan

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

Elverston, Sir Harold

Hazleton, Richard

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich).

Esslemont, George Birnie.

Henry, Sir Charles

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

Middlebrook, William

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Higham, John Sharp

Molloy, Michael

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Hogg, David C.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Robinson, Sidney

Hogge, James Myles

Mooney, John J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Morgan, George Hay

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Holt, Richard Durning

Morrell, Philip

Roe, Sir Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morison, Hector

Rowlands, James

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rowntree, Arnold

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Muldoon, John

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Munro, Robert

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

John, Edward Thomas

Murphy, Martin J.

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

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Neilson, Francis

Scanlan, Thomas

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Nolan, Joseph

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Nuttall, Harry

Sheehy, David

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Keating, Matthew

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Kelly, Edward

O'Doherty, Philip

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Donnell, Thomas

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Kilbride, Denis

O'Dowd, John

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

King, Joseph

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

Sutherland, John E.

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

O'Malley, William

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Lardner, James C. R.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Tennant, Harold John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

O'Shee, James John

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Toulmin, Sir George

Leach, Charles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Verney, Sir Harry

Lundon, Thomas

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lynch, A. A.

Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

Waring, Walter

Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

McGhee, Richard

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Watt, Henry Anderson

Macpherson, James Ian

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

Webb, R.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

M'Kean, John

Pringle, William M. R.

Whitehouse, John Howard

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Radford, G. H.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wiles, Thomas

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

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Manfield, Harry

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

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

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Reddy, Michael

Winfrey, Richard

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wing, Thomas

Martin, Joseph

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

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

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Meagher, Michael

Rendall, Athelstan

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Richards, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Menzies, Sir Walter

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bull, Sir William James

Croft, H. P.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Butcher, John George

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

Denniss, E. R. B.

Baird, John Lawrence

Campion, W. R.

Duke, Henry Edward

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Cassel, Felix

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Cator, John

Fell, Arthur

Barnston, Harry

Cave, George

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Forster, Henry William

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Gardner, Ernest

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

Gilmour, Captain John

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Bigland, Alfred

Clay, Captain H H. Spender

Goldman, C. S.

Bird, Alfred

Clynes, John R.

Goldsmith, Frank

Blair, Reginald

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Courthope, George Loyd

Grant, J. A.

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Greene, Walter Raymond

Boyton, James

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Nintan

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

1704

1705

Haddock, George Bahr

Mason; James F. (Windsor)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Stewart, Gershom

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Harris, Henry Percy

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Helmsley, Viscount

Mount, William Arthur

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Touche, George Alexander

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Valentia, Viscount

Hoare, S. J. G.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Perkins, Walter F.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Peto, Basil Edward

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Randles, Sir John S.

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Rees, Sir J. D.

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Royds, Edmund

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Kerry, Earl of

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Keswick, Henry

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Winterton, Earl

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Sanderson, Lancelot

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Lewisham, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

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

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Spear, Sir John Ward

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Stanier, Beville

Mackinder, Halford J.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

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

Starkey, John Ralph

Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next (16th June).

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As this Bill, although I believe it, is quite non-controversial, involves the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, about £1,000,000 in all, it is necessary that I should explain as briefly as I can the purposes of the Bill and its provisions. Its purpose is to enable the Post Office to construct an electric railway from the East to the West of London for Post Office purposes, and for the carrying of mails and parcels. I mentioned this subject in introducing the Post Office Estimates last year and again this year, when the plans for the railway had matured, and we were able to make our concrete proposals. The Post Office naturally always desires to adopt any improvement that may be feasible in its methods of handling mails and parcels. At the present time mails are carried in London in motor or horse-drawn vehicles, which
1706
run at contract speed of eight miles an hour when letters are being carried and six miles an hour when parcels are being carried. My predecessor appointed a Departmental Committee in 1909 to consider whether some method of underground traction could not be adopted which would be more expeditious and generally of a better character. That Committee reported in February, 1911, in favour of the construction of an electric railway as against the construction of pneumatic tubes, and recommended that this railway should be owned and used exclusively by the Post Office. The advantages to be derived from this plan are, in the first place, that the mails will be carried much more expeditiously, consequently the public will be benefited by the improvement in the postal service, and the mails will not be delayed, as is now frequently the case, beyond the normal time of transit by the excessive crowding of traffic in the streets or obstructions which may be caused by fog, snowstorm, or the occurrence of some public function or procession or other causes of that kind.
Further, from an internal Post Office point of view, it is of great importance that the sorting staff should have a regular continuous flow of work, and that the letters and parcels, as the case may be, should not come upon them in large masses, but should, to whatever extent be feasible, come in at short and regular in-

1707
tervals over a considerable period of time. This will enable the mails to be handled much more cheaply and expeditiously than in the circumstances now prevailing. Lastly, from the point of view of the users of London streets, it is very advisable that the traffic congestion which now prevails in so many localities so frequently should be relieved by taking the very numerous Post Office vans and motors off the streets if possible. Following on the recommendations of this Committee, and the decision of the Government to adopt this plan, we invited the assistance of Mr. Dalrymple Hay, a very distinguished civil engineer, who, I believe, has more experience in the construction of tube railways of this kind than any other man in this country. He has been working on the preparation of the plans with the Chief Engineer of the Post Office and his staff. The railway will start at its westward end at Paddington District Office, there being a connection with Paddington Station. It will run under the Western Parcels Office in Bird Street, under the Western Central Office in New Oxford Street, under the great sorting office at Mount Pleasant and Clerkenwell, and under the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand. It will pass under Liverpool Street Station, and will end at the Eastern District Office in the Whitechapel Road. Its total length is six and a half miles. Provision will be made at the outset to enable later extensions to be made, if thought desirable, northwards to Euston Station, King's Cross Station and the Northern District Post Office, and southwards to Cannon Street, London Bridge, Waterloo, and the South Western District Post Office. There will be lifts and automatic conveyors to enable the mails to be handled very cheaply and expeditiously, and to be transmitted from the station on this railway to the sorting offices and to the railway stations. It will consist of a nine-foot tube and will contain two tracks. The trains will consist of comparatively small trucks. They will be electrically controlled from the stations, and will not be accompanied by drivers. They will run at a speed of about twenty-five miles an hour, and there will be ingenious automatic arrangements which will enable them to be run, whenever necessary, with perfect safety at intervals of one minute. The railway will be completed in about two and a half to three years. It is proposed that it will be built by contractors, and tenders will be
1708
invited, and the specification will be completed when the sanction of Parliament is obtained.
In respect to the finance of the scheme, it is proposed to defray the cost by loan, because this is not an expenditure like military or naval work which brings in no revenue. The Post Office being a revenue-earning business, expenditure of this kind earns income in future years. Moreover, it is not practicable to throw on to the finances of one, two, or even three years so large an expenditure as is involved in this case. The cost of interest and sinking fund will be equalled by annual savings almost completely. The Bill asks for authorisation for an expenditure of £1,100,000, but I think the expenditure is expected to be about £964,000, a higher sum being authorised in order to provide for possible at present unforeseen eventualities. Of course, it will be constructed as cheaply as possible. The expenditure includes a sum of £120,000 to enable the stations to be constructed on a sufficiently large scale to enable, later on, the extensions which are contemplated to be made. The annual expenditure will be, for interest at 3½ per cent. and sinking fund, £43,000, and working expenses £15,000, a total of £58,000. On the other hand, there is a saving in existing mail services of £43,000. We shall be able at once to terminate an existing expenditure of £43,000 for mail cart services. We also shall be able to effect an economy in electric current for other Post Office purposes of £4,700. We shall be so enormously increasing the current used in London for Post Office purposes that it will be greatly cheapened for other uses, and the engineers estimate a saving of £4,700—a total saving of £47,700. Therefore, in the first year there will be an increased expenditure of £11,000. The tube railway once constructed will, of course, be able to handle any increase of growth which is likely to occur in the London Post Office in a very long period of time. It will not only be able to handle the existing amount of mail matter, but any increase which can possibly be foreseen without any appreciable increase of cost. The capital cost will remain stationary, no matter how much increased work has to be dealt with. On the other hand, the mail cart services will increase in cost in the future year by year as the work grows, therefore, in a very few years' time this initial increase of expenditure will be more than covered by the avoidance of increased expenditure

1709
which would otherwise have been necessary. Even if that were not so, I believe this small increased expenditure of about £11,000 will be well worth making in consideration of the great acceleration of the mails—about twenty minutes in each case, eastwards and westwards—which would follow, and the increased economy which will be effected by the more even flow of work. It is proposed that the Bill shall go to a Committee of the House of Commons for its details to be examined, and, as this is a Hybrid Bill, partly in the nature of a public Bill and partly in the nature of a private Bill, it is proposed, following the usual course, that three Members of the Committee shall be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection, and that all the parties who are interested in the matter should have an opportunity of being heard before the Committee. On that understanding I hope the House will be good enough to sanction the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. PETO: After the explanation that the Postmaster-General has given the House, we can rest assured that the intentions of the Post Office in this matter are strictly honourable; but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw attention, and, on the question of finance, I should like the House to note that there is a deficit, according to the right hon. Gentleman's figures, of £11,000 on the first year's working, whereas he anticipates that probably a good deal more will be saved by the facilities which this work will give to the Post Office in carrying increased traffic in the future. It is precisely with that point that I want to deal. The Government have introduced this Bill as a Government measure, although the Preamble shows that the Post Office will, after the passing of this Bill, become to all intents and purposes a railway company. "It is expedient that the Postmaster-General should be authorised to construct and maintain a railway." At the very outset we are met with this. Here is a Post Office, a public Department which undoubtedly, although it may have very excellent reasons, is taking a very novel departure in becoming a railway company, and this Bill, the first of its kind, has not been, as it would have been if it had been the undertaking of any private company, open to discussion or challenge before a Committee before it is introduced into this House. It may be, and probably is, to the
1710
public convenience that the Post Office should become a railway company; but I would ask the attention of the House to the fact that under Clause 5 they are exempt from the provisions that Parliament has made in time past which apply to every other railway company, and particularly from "the provisions of any general Act relating to railways, except such provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as are incorporated with this Act." Those provisions that do not apply to this railway include all the provisions with regard to undue preference and matters of that kind, and with regard to any increase in rates. Of course it may not be applicable to the present purposes for which the railway is intended, but there are matters which traders generally in the country regard with a good deal of jealousy, and we are led to expect from what the Postmaster-General has said, that there will be a strong inducement held out to Postmaster-Generals in the future, now that they have once embarked on this new form of enterprise, to increase the work which the Post Office does, and to develope beyond what is the present limit of parcel postage, which is 11 lbs., into being much more general carriers of small goods than they are at present.
I, myself, welcome this proposal to handle small goods of this kind that the Post Office now deal with in a much more modern, expeditious and satisfactory way, removing from the streets the cumbrous methods at present adopted; but if the Post Office takes this new departure, whereas the railway companies continue to handle their heavier traffic and small goods by the antiquated, cumbrous, and inconvenient means which they still adopt, surely the whole tendency will be that the more modern and up-to-date method of the Postmaster-General will tend more and more to do away with the functions of seine of the existing railway companies, at any rate, with their functions so far as they concern the carriage of the smaller class of goods and large parcels. If that is so it seems to me that if there is to be a development in this direction it is extremely desirable that the provisions that Parliament has made with regard to undue preference and the like should be applicable to the Post Office in their capacity as a railway company, and that that should not be done away with altogether, as is proposed in this Bill. At present traders generally feel that the railway companies do not treat them fairly in the matter of rebate for

1711
collection and delivery, and it would be very undesirable if, under this Bill, as the Post Office have full power if it is passed in its present form, they were to give a preference to railway companies or to any class of carrier, railway companies as against carriers, carriers as against the general public, who prefer to do their own delivery and collection, and transmit these larger parcels, which I contemplate only from some central point, and not use the Postmaster-General's system at all. In support of what I have said, I might call attention to another Clause of the Bill. Clause 23 says:—
"In this Act unless the context otherwise implies:—
The expression 'the railway' includes the railways, subway, and works authorised by this Act;
The expression 'the purpose of the Post Office' has the same meaning as in the Post Office Act, 1908."
I find in the Post Office Act of 1908 that precisely what I have been saying is indicated. In that Act the expression "the purpose of the Post Office" means—
"any purpose of any of the Post Office Acts or of any Acts for the time being in force relating to Post Office money orders, Post Office telegraphs, or Post Office savings banks, and includes any purpose relating to or in connection with the execution of the duties for the time being undertaken by the Postmaster-General or any of his officers."
Clearly all that the Postmaster-General now contemplates is a limited system of tube railways of nine feet diameter in part of the Metropolitan area. It is entirely a new departure, and he may be right or wrong in limiting his demand to the small diameter to which I have referred. It might be wiser to take power to construct a tube of a more generally serviceable diameter when he is going to take land, and disturb streets and property, in the way that will have to be done in order to introduce a tube system such as this. Whether this is a right beginning or not, it is clearly only a beginning, unless the whole of the railway companies running into London follow his excellent example and handle their goods traffic in a modern and up-to-date way such as he is inaugurating with reference to the mails. There is no definition in the Bill of what is meant by "mails." I understand that there is a general definition somewhere,
1712
but I have not been able to find out where. It is not defined in the Post Office Act of 1908. There, again, we have another loophole for "mails" being extended to very much more than what is contemplated at present. The Postmaster-General has indicated in another way that this is only a beginning. I have here the plans of the works which the Postmaster-General has referred to and of extensions which are contemplated, and for which he says he is taking immediately powers to carry them into effect as they are required. They include two tunnels underneath the river to carry mails to the south side, and it is also, proposed that there should be large extensions northwards to Camden Town and Canonbury. We have a complete network, or the immediate prospect of it, of tube railways for this purpose. Therefore, I think the powers taken under Clause 5 of the Bill will make the Post Office practically a railway company to all intents and purposes, wholly apart from the work of carrying mails.
The question of protecting the traders of the country, as regards the Post Office, in the same way as they are protected in respect of every other railway undertaking authorised by this House requires very careful consideration. I would like to ask the Postmaster-General, if he is going to say anything more on the subject at all, whether by the £1,100,000 asked he is making provisions for sorting the mails at a central clearing house, because that is part of the scheme which, I believe, must in the near future be adopted by the railway companies? If this is to be a model, as I hope it will be, as to how small goods traffic can be dealt with, I sincerely hope that he will make provision for dealing with the heavier parcels traffic at a central point when he is taking powers for providing modern and up-to-date machinery. I do not desire to oppose the Postmaster-General's proposal, but as this is a new beginning which is undoubtedly capable of very large extension, and as he and his successors will be practically in the position of a railway company in the future, I would ask him to consider whether, in order to relieve the minds of traders, the same safeguards against undue preference and excessive rates and charges that are imposed upon every other company should not also be imposed on the Post Office?
Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I should like to say a few words on this interesting proposal from the point of view of one who is considering the question of London

1713
traffic on the Committee upstairs. I should be glad to know if the Postmaster-General could tell me how far this proposal will have an effect in relieving the traffic on the streets, and also whether he can give some sort of idea as to how many mail carts will be taken off the streets as the result of this proposed railway. I should be glad to know whether the Post Office have in mind considerable extensions of these railways. That has an important bearing on the questions we are considering upstairs, and I wish him to give us all the information he can on the subject. I wish to know what exactly is to be the trade of this railway. Is the traffic to be confined entirely to the ordinary Post Office work, merely the carrying of mails, or does he contemplate that he will be able to carry other traffic which is not conducted by the Post Office at present? I should like to know also whether consideration has been given to the question if, when a tube railway is going to be made, it would not be better to make it on a larger scale, in order to deal with a great deal of traffic which now passes along the London streets, and helps to cause congestion. I do not know whether he contemplates that some of the goods carried by railway carts should be carried on this railway. I should be glad to know if that is so. Two questions have been raised by the road authorities—the borough councils—and I presume these authorities will have an opportunity of raising any objections which they feel in regard to any Clause in the Bill when the subject is considered upstairs. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that this will go to a Committee which will, if necessary, hear evidence from the local bodies. One of the questions raised is as to the powers to be taken in regard to the breaking up of streets. It is suggested that the Post Office is rather an offender in the matter of breaking up streets, and it is hoped that some provision will be made in the Bill, or that some assurance will be given, in order to regulate in some way the breaking up of streets which is one of the principal causes of congestion in London. The other question arises on Clause 6, which provides for the supply of electrical energy. Is it contemplated by the Post Office to supply their own electrical energy or is it proposed to take it from the municipal authorities, who are naturally very anxious to supply electricity to those requiring it? At present they complain
1714
that railway companies and others have power to supply their tenants or customers with electricity, and they hope that the Post Office will be willing to take their supply from the local authorities.
Mr. MARTIN: I think the House is under a debt of obligation to the Postmaster-General who introduced the Bill for the very clear and lucid speech he made in stating its provisions. The only fault I have to find is that he did not go on with his explanations. It seems to me that he cut his speech very short considering the magnitude of the undertaking proposed and the very important questions that have been raised by the two previous speakers. Of course, I am not opposing this measure. Quite the contrary. As a Member representing a London constituency, I am very much interested in a public improvement of this kind. In addition, personally, I am a very strong supporter of the idea of Government ownership of railways, and I am very glad that in this practical way the Government have made a start in this direction. They propose that this railway shall be owned by the great Post Office Department, the operation of which to my mind is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Government ownership of all railways. The Government proposes, by this measure, to build a considerable amount of railway in the City of London, and instead of being used to provide dividends for private individuals, it is to be used for the benefit of the whole people. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill in a general way; but I am disappointed that we have not had a more detailed explanation. The Bill covers seventeen pages, and the work is a very large work indeed. In Clause 2, provision is made for as many as sixteen railways, though it is true that they are not of very great length, but at the same time they are very important because they are all underground. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that a very eminent engineer, whose name I did not catch, probably the most competent man to be found for the construction of underground railways in the City of London, has designed them. The Bill discloses the fact that plans have been prepared, and they are on the file in the public office where they can be examined. I would not expect the Postmaster-General to go into these plans, but I do think that we are entitled to have some general description of the work. The right hon. Gentleman

1715
did not tell us where these railways were, and I think that before asking us to vote this very large sum of money, involving and giving very extensive powers in a field not heretofore occupied by his Department, the construction of a railway, we ought to be in more complete possession of the extent of the scheme, and we should have a fuller explanation of the reasons which induced the Post Office to come to the conclusion that the construction of this system of railways in London will be an advantage to the Department, and, of course, incidentally to the public. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the matter, as he usually, does in all matters connected with his Department, with the greatest care. I am rather surprised to see that with the exception of the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Harris), the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones), the hon. Member on the Front Bench (Captain Norton), and the hon. Member for Southwark, no London Members are here.
Mr. FREDERICK HALL: There are other London Members present.
Mr. MARTIN: I understand that the hon. Member for Dulwich has just arrived on the scene, but if it had not been for the vigilance of the hon. Member for Paddington this Bill would have been read a second time in the absence of the hon. Member for Dulwich. In a general way the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the cost of this system of railways is expected to be £960,000, but he told us, and we find in the Bill, that the Government propose to take authority from this House for the expenditure of £1,100,000. That is about £150,000 more than the work is intended to cover. I protest against that, and I think that if this House furnish the Government with money sufficient to pay the cost of a proposed public works, they are doing all that they ought to be expected to do at the moment. I quite admit that it is very difficult even for an eminent engineer to make a fairly accurate estimate of the cost of public work of this kind, but this work will take a considerable time to complete. The right hon. Gentleman did not give us any information on this.
Mr. WATT: Two and a half or three years.
Mr. MARTIN: In two and a half years there will probably be three more Sessions
1716
of this House. It would be quite hopeless for the right hon. Gentleman, should he leave his Department, or if there should be a change of Government, to come to the House and claim that the £950,000, which was calculated to be required for this work was not sufficient, though the House, no doubt, would be very ready indeed to grant an additional sum. It does seem to me, however, that unless some special ground is put forward to justify an exception being made, it is a wrong principle for the Government to deliberately add the considerable sum of £150,000 to the amount of money for which they ask authority to spend. I submit that that is a very loose way of doing business. From the history of the Liberal party, especially when it was the Opposition, we have a right to expect that when that party is in power it should be very economical—that is to say, that it should not spend any more money on any work it undertakes than is actually required for the purpose of that work. The Government come down and deliberately ask the House for £150,000 more than they themselves expect will be required for these public works. That, at any rate, is one inducement for the Government to practice economy which has been removed.
It is always more or less an interference with other business for a Government to come to the House and ask for an additional appropriation in connection with public works. But I am not sure that it is not also a very considerable inducement for any Department to keep within their estimates if they know that should they exceed them in any way they will find it necessary again to come to the House and be subjected a second time to have their whole scheme reviewed. I notice by Section 13 of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman takes power for the Treasury to issue terminable annuities for the purpose of spreading this sum of something like a million pounds over a term of thirty years, or not exceeding thirty years. It seems to me that that proposition opens up a very large field indeed as to how far the Government should be allowed to put the country into debt in respect of expenditures, which, if they are not exactly capital expenditures, in one sense, may be spoken of as capital expenditure. After all, it is something like buildings. If the Post Office required more buildings, it has been the practice in the past to construct those buildings out of the revenues of the year. After all, these are small railways, but in principle they are like buildings.

1717
Railway No. 1 is of considerable length—2 miles 3 furlongs 7.87 chains; No. 2 is 8 chains in length, or thereabouts; No. 3 is 3.28 chains; No. 4 is 7.2 chains; No. 5 is 6 furlongs 9.8 chains; No. 6 is 8.3 chains; No. 7 is 6 furlongs 8.25 chains; No. 8 is 8.3 chains; No. 9 is 3.65 chains; No. 10 is 1 furlong 5.4 chains; No. 11 is 7 furlongs 3 chains; No. 12 is 7.2 chains; No. 13 is 2.2 chains; No. 14 is 1 mile and 2.43 chains; and No. 15 is 4 chains. There is a subway of 5.6 chains.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: What is the total?
Mr. MARTIN: I should be very much pleased, if the hon. Gentleman has time, that he should add the figures together for me, and I shall be very glad to state the result to the House. No doubt, it is a tube of considerable magnitude, and I do not say that it should all be provided for out of the year's revenue. But I do say that the deliberate postponement of this money over a period of thirty years is an infringement of the principle laid down by the Liberal party time and time again. It was the practice of the Conservatives, when they were in power, to issue bonds or Consols, or some securities, for the purpose of buildings in connection with the Army. I have listened with great pleasure to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining quite frequently that this Government had abandoned that policy, which they considered a bad one. I find it very difficult to see the difference between buildings, such as barracks for the Army, and the permanent structures which are contemplated in this Bill. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that it was a very bad policy to postpone these payments, and that it was abandoned by this Government, which is admittedly very superior to the Government which hon. Gentlemen opposite carried on for many years, yet now that we have this proposal for subways, which are as much permanent structures as are buildings, I find it difficult, as an ardent supporter of the Government, to reconcile the proposal to postpone payment for these works with the policy of abandoning that principle which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General has told us that this Bill is a hybrid measure, partly a private Bill, and partly a public Bill—a public Bill, so far as concerns the authorisation of the Government to invest the money of the country in structures of
1718
this kind, and a private Bill so far as it will affect the rights of persons under whose property the subway will be constructed. Being a hybrid Bill, the right hon. Gentleman informs us that it is his intention, after the Bill has been read a second time, to propose that it shall go to what will be practically a Private Bill Committee. I do not object to that in toto, but I do think that in a Bill of this magnitude, which not only involves the rights of individuals, of corporations, and of owners of property, under which the subway may pass, but also involves a new departure in public works, the details should be very closely scrutinised by a competent Committee. My point is, that the number of Members which has been suggested as being the number that shall be appointed in connection with the Bill is not sufficient for a Bill of this magnitude. I do think that the House would prefer that a Committee to have charge of important details and in which important private rights are affected should be larger than five, and that the right hon. Gentleman would please the House better by suggesting to double the number.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): That does not arise on this Motion, but on the subsequent Motion.
Mr. MARTIN: The hon. Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) has drawn attention to one of the Clauses of the Bill upon which the right hon. Gentleman gave us no light whatever, and which seems to me of great public importance. I refer to Clause 5, which in the second Sub-section proposes to exempt the Post Office Department from all the laws which govern railways, while the Bill proposes to constitute practically the Postmaster-General, in his corporate capacity, as a railway company. It does seem to me that that is not a Committee point but one as to which responsibility rests on the whole House. Those laws were passed presumably in the interests and for the protection of the general public. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest to us whether this railway was a mere experiment with regard to London, and it appears to me we ought to know, in case this tube turns out to be practical and to confer the advantages which he has indicated, whether those facilities will be extended to other large cities in the United Kingdom like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester, and Birmingham.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: What about Liverpool?
Mr. MARTIN: And Liverpool, too.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The hon. Member forgets the city of Sheffield.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. MARTIN: I must admit I did for the moment. Of course the same argument applies to it. Although those cities are not perhaps as well represented as London, they are entitled to any benefits which may turn out from a public work of this kind. We are under a considerable obligation to the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Harris) for the two points he raised. The first was with regard to the effect of this work on the great problem of the traffic of the London streets, about which important matter there is a Committee of this House sitting at present. The right hon. Gentleman overlooked that question entirely in his opening remarks. If a considerable number of automobiles and horse carriages were removed from the streets of London by the construction of this subway, that would affect the question of traffic in London. We have had no light thrown on that question by the right hon. Gentleman, whose duty I suggest it was to give us a full review of a new proposal like this. In this Bill we are not simply carrying out precedents of previous years. It is an entirely new departure, and I do think that under the circumstances the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was incomplete, to say the least of it. The other point referred to by the Member for Paddington was that of electrical energy. Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the Postmaster-General may lay down and maintain and use cables and lines for the purpose of transmitting electrical energy. I am not opposed to that idea. I am in favour of the Government ownership of railways and of all public facilities, and therefore I am not opposed, for the moment, to the suggestion in this Bill that the Government should have power to provide electrical energy for themselves rather than buy it from a private company. The point raised by the hon. Member was that a number of municipal boroughs had already expended very large sums in electrical plant, and we wanted to know, and I do also, what is to be the attitude of the Government towards those. For instance, in my Constituency of East St. Pancras the borough council of St.
1720
Pancras have a very effective and complete electrical plant. They have electrical energy to sell, and it does seem to me that the hon. Member brought forward a very material issue in the suggestion that the Government should not construct plant that would come into direct competition with the plants of the municipal boroughs. I would not hesitate to give the Government my strong support to a proposal that they should have the right and power—and I would expect them to use that right and power—of constructing electrical plant that should compete with plant constructed, owned, and operated by private companies. But it is entirely different when we come to the question of one public authority, the Post Office Department, undertaking to construct plant which is to compete directly with public plant constructed by the different boroughs of London. I feel sure that the Borough Council of St. Pancras, when it learns that the Government are contemplating going into the electrical lighting and power business, will, at the earliest opportunity, ask the four representatives of the borough, two of whom sit on the Government side and two, unfortunately, on the Tory side, to bring all the influence they can to bear upon the Government to see that they do not overlook the opportunity of assisting in a certain way the borough councils in their attempt to develop the idea of the public ownership of public utilities. I have no intention of opposing this Bill, but I am really disappointed that there should be present so few of the Members through whose constituencies this proposed subway would pass.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the third time the hon. Member has made that remark. I must ask him not to repeat it again.
Mr. MARTIN: I was about to sit down. I shall certainly not repeat that remark or any other part of my speech. I have endeavoured briefly to lay before the House certain matters which occurred to me, and certain considerations put forward by the hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for South Paddington which also appealed to me as a Member whose Constituency is directly affected by the proposals of the Government. I have no desire to add to what I have already said.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: We have been privileged to listen to an exhaustive and detailed examination of this

1721
Bill, which has been expressed very eloquently and exceedingly briefly, having regard to the important subjects with which the hon. Member dealt, some of which subjects were in the Bill and others not. The Bill is, in one respect, no doubt important, because it is a new departure. But, after all, it is not a very serious matter, or one that ought to occupy the tune of the House at any great length.
Mr. WATT: A million of money!
Mr. RUTHERFORD: A million of money is nothing to some of my hon. Friends; they vote £14,000,000, £15,000,000, or £20,000,000 in a few moments, without any discussion at all. But that is not the point. We have here a proposal that the Post Office should put down an underground railway, about six miles in length, for the purpose of facilitating postal arrangements. If the Post Office could suggest any means of expediting and cheapening the service, I would heartily support them. It is not in any sense a political question; it is simply a question of expediency and whether it is the right thing to do. Seeing that we have had for all these years the penny post in London, with six or eight deliveries every day, and that there have been no improvements at all on that state of affairs, either in point of charge or in point of delivery, I think we ought to welcome any serious attempt on the part of the Post Office to improve its service. It is commonly supposed that the Post Office is a progressive institution, but a careful investigation for some years past has convinced me that it is one of the most backward and dilatory institutions in the country. In spite of the improvements in railways and other means of transit, there has been no serious attempt, at all events in London, to cheapen the proved and could be effectively carried interests of the public and of the trading community. One or two features of the present proposal are rather startling. Borne of us were under the impression that the postal service had been vastly improved, and could be effectively carried out in the Metropolis by an extension of pneumatic tubes, and that it would be quite sufficient to make a small tube through which parcels and mails could be sent with great facility and at very little cost. But here we have a proposal for a tube no less than 9 ft. in diameter generally, and 16 ft. in diameter at the stations. That is quite a different matter. It is practically equivalent to making a railway
1722
by which postmen and passengers, as well as parcels and mails, could be sent. It is a very serious matter to construct a railway of such dimensions through such a city as London.
The question of the electrical working of the line is one of considerable importance. I had the privilege, two or three years ago, of serving upon an important Committee of this House in reference to the electrical supply of the whole Metropolis. We sat for six or seven weeks, and made a very important Report upon the bulk supply, as well as upon the other electrical supply, all over the Metropolitan area. The conclusion that we came to amounted to this, that if every consumer of electricity could be induced or compelled to take his electricity from one source, the cost to every consumer would be immensely reduced, because the whole question in the case of electricity depends upon what is known as the load factor. You can only increase that load factor to 100 per cent. by getting an infinite variety of utilities for the purposes for which it may be used. When a public Department like the Post Office comes forward and desires to set up a separate electrical supply it goes right in the very teeth of the Report of that Committee. It goes right against the advice of any electrical expert or any person who has given any attention of importance to the subject. It shows a total disregard of the general convenience and the general interests of the community when persons desire to have an electrical supply for their own particular purpose where the load factor could not possibly under the circumstances exceed about 14 or 15 per cent. The whole of the other 85 per cent. is practically so much loss, so much energy created or capable of being created for which there is no possible use owing to the fact that the machinery can only be used for that same purpose. I very much regret that in this Bill the Postmaster-General has not seen fit to follow the lines of electrical advance upon this subject, and take his electricity from those sources, people, and institutions in the district through which this railway is going to pass. These people are making it for the public good and necessarily try to use that electricity to the best advantage and sell it at the lowest cost.
I notice in this Bill that there are a number of very important provisions. For instance, I think the Postmaster-General does not propose to acquire any

1723
surfaces for the purpose of the Bill. He is going to use certain public places, and certain public streets for the purpose of approaches to his underground tunnel. He does not propose to pay for these different places. In addition to that, he does not propose that the Department should be liable under Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Acts: that the Post Office should be responsible for carrying out any of the Clauses of the Railways Consolidation Act. If the Post Office were really or to any extent competing with any other public bodies it obviously would be wrong that the other public bodies should be liable, in pursuance of their undertaking, to adhere to these general public Statutes and that the Post Office should be relieved. We have had this particular point raised on several other occasions when the Post Office have brought forward Bills for the purpose of their buildings and undertakings in different parts of the country. We have discussed it rather ad nauseam, but it has always been carried against the objectors and in favour of the Post Office. If the Post Office are going to take a piece of anybody's land, they are not subject to taking the whole piece like a railway company and paying for it. The Post Office will take the bit they require and can snap their fingers at the owner or owners of the property. That is one of the Sections of the Bill which we have now got under discussion. There are a number of other Sections of the same character. All that the Post Office have got to do under this Bill in regard to anybody's property on the top is simply to pay for the damage in case the building shows signs of giving way. One cannot help thinking that the Post Office, if they get this Bill, will be in a very favoured position. They will be able to make a railway under 5 or 6 miles of London without paying for any property; without even having to buy any land for stations. If they go sufficiently deep there will be practically nothing to pay for property at all. No railway company can get any such privileges as that. That is one of the arguments why some of my hon. Friends opposite desire to nationalise the railways in order, I presume, that they may have somewhat similar privileges.
We are entitled to do two things in regard to this Bill. First, we are entitled to congratulate the Postmaster-General on having had the audacity, the ability, and the energy to resolve on any item of any
1724
initiatory character whatever. It is a long time since the Post Office showed such signs of life as they are apparently manifesting to-night. I think that the House of Commons ought to be delighted to see that under the Postmastership of the right hon. Gentleman there is some small indication of vitality and progress in the Department. That is one feature of it. The other is that, I presume, the Post Office is now making arrangements not to do anything in a piecemeal, small, humbugging sort of way, with, so to speak, pneumatic tubes, with which they might take a few million letters and so on, but are going to make a 9-ft. tube which will take all the correspondence and all the parcels along the given route which anybody can possibly shove into it, and transport them with the greatest possible celerity. If I were inclined to emulate the eloquence and critical acumen of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras and to deal in detail with each Clause of this Bill, there is no doubt I could prevent the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill from coming on for the next fortnight. I am not disposed to do anything of the sort. My object in rising was simply to point out a few of the features of the Bill, and one or two points of view, and to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the initiative and progress which is now being displayed by the Post Office
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer some of the questions which have been put to me. On each side I notice some hon. Members take a deep interest in this Bill, which should be very gratifying to the Minister in charge; though I would like to point out that several of the hon. Members who have spoken happen to be the strongest opponents of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill and the Bee Disease Bill, which happen to be the next Orders on the Paper.
Mr. MARTIN: I rise to a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to suggest improper motives?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman as making any references outside the limits of Parliamentary debate.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Several questions of substance have been addressed to me, the first by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes, who is not now here. He suggests that since we are constructing a railway we ought

1725
to do something towards the provision of the Railways Act. The provisions of the Railways Act are, of course, intended very largely for the safety of the public, and the public will not use this railway at all. It is purely a private railway. There will not even be any drivers or conductors on the trains. They will be worked automatically. They will carry no passengers, nor any persons at all. Consequently the main provisions of the Railways Act are quite inapplicable in this case.
Sir F. BANBURY: Not with regard to the taking of land or property?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: So far as this is concerned the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, so far as it is applicable in this case, is reserved and is made applicable by Clause 5. The hon. Member suggested that certainly these provisions of the Railways Act which forbids preference to be given to individuals ought to be applicable to the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General is under a general obligation in all cases not to show favour or preference to anyone, and it is quite impossible to conceive that any Postmaster-General would at any time make preferential arrangements with any individual or company for the carriage of parcels or goods at favoured rates. If he did so he would, of course, be subject to the reprobation of this House, which would be visited upon him very swiftly and in no uncertain fashion. The whole work of the Post Office, so far as rates are concerned, is carried on under Statutes and Rules and customs which would make it absolutely impossible for such a contingency to arise. The hon. Member then said it might be in the power of the Postmaster-General to increase rates for the carriage of parcels. The Bill gives no power whatever to the Postmaster-General except to construct this railway for the purposes of the Post Office. It does not affect in the smallest degree those other purposes, and it does not deal in any way with the rates and neither enlarges or restricts whatever power the Post Office may have to vary rates. It enables the Postmaster-General to construct a railway for the purposes of the Post Office and nothing more at all. For example, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that under this Bill we might increase the rate for parcels above 11 1bs. weight. No provision under the Bill touches that.
Mr. PETO: For the purposes of the Post Office the 1908 Act undoubtedly includes a provision for the carriage of parcels up to any weight that may be necessary.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is totally unaffected by this Bill. The weight of parcels is fixed by a regulation approved by the Treasury, and can be altered whether this Bill is passed or not by regulation approved by the Treasury, and, of course, subject to the controlling authority of this House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention whatever in passing this Bill to extend the parcel post or to carry any other weights. The point has not been considered in this connection. The Bill is not introduced with any such purpose. I am not saying that all my successors for all time shall never increase the weights of parcels, but certainly this Bill does not in any way affect the matter. The hon. Gentleman asked whether this Bill dealt with the sorting of the mails, and would enable the mails to be sent better to the clearing house, and also the parcels. All parcels are now sorted at Mount Pleasant, and this Bill will facilitate the traffic in the transmission of parcels and mails, and will enable a practical and necessary concentration of the work to be effected.
The hon. Member for South Paddington asked what would be the number of vans taken off the streets. I cannot give the exact figure, but as the saving will be £43,000 a year in the cost of carting, that is about £800 a week, it is obvious that the number of vans must be very large. We employ a very large number of vans for £800 a week. The Board of Trade, who are interested in the traffic problem, attach much importance to this Bill as a means of relieving congestion in the streets. The hon. Member asks if there was to be any further extension of these railways. I dealt with that in my opening remarks. He further inquired whether we propose to take over any of the work now done by the railways and further relieve the traffic. That is not our intention. He complained about the breaking up of the streets. Obviously you cannot make underground railways without digging holes. You must get at the work somehow, and as the stations are to be on Post Office premises, some of them in the neighbourhood of railway stations, pits can be dug for access to the lower work of the railway. Another inquiry was where the energy, that is the power for working the-railway, would be obtained from. The

1727
Post Office has now very large electrical power stations at Blackfriars. Hon. Members walking along the embankment between Blackfriars and Waterloo Bridge will see a large building which is the Post Office power station, recently built and admirably equipped, and that will enable the power required to be supplied for the railway for very small cost, and will enable us to obtain cheaper power to be used for other Post Office purposes, because the production will be on a larger scale.
The hon. Member for East St. Pancras asked me a number of questions, but I think he will find that all of them were answered in anticipation in my opening remarks. I dealt with the question why we were dealing with this by loan very fully. He suggested we ought to take precisely the amount we estimate and no more, leaving no margin for contingencies, and come back to Parliament for another Bill in another year, if it was necessary to ask for more money. I feel perfectly certain that the House would regard a second application for money for the same purpose as a most unbusinesslike proceeding, and the Post Office would be unanimously condemned, and by no one more than by the hon. Member who might be anxious to speak upon the second Bill. He would be the first to protest against the want of foresight and lack of business capacity on the part of the Postmaster-General for not asking for the proper figure and not leaving a margin for contingencies. Whether the principles of this measure will be applied to the provincial towns must depend on the future. As at present advised, I cannot imagine that the financial saving obtained even in the largest of our provincial cities would be sufficient to justify the construction of tube railways in any of them. I trust after this unexpectedly prolonged discussion the House will now be able to come to a decision upon the matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool made a most interesting speech, with the greater part of which I agree, but there was one part of it with which I did not agree, and that was the part in which he stated that the Post Office was not an enterprising body. In my belief the Post Office is far too enterprising and far too prodigal of the money of the tax payers.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: That is another point.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is a point that is relevant to the Bill before us at the present moment, as I think I shall be able to show before I finish the few remarks I intend to make. I admit it is very rarely that my hon. Friend is wrong, but in the very eloquent, speech which he addressed to the House he made one small error. I have two objections to this Bill. The first is founded on the ground of expense, and the second upon the ground that the Post Office are allocating to themselves powers which they would be the first to refuse to any private body or company which came before this House and asked for those powers. I think in what I am going to say that I shall have the support of the Labour party, because they have always maintained that the State ought to set up as model employers. In the same way the State ought to set up as a model with regard to the powers they take, and ask only for the same powers as they would be prepared to give to private capitalists.
I wish to say a few words upon the monetary 'question, which is, to my mind, extremely important. At the present moment we are liable to pay to the State taxation amounting to something like £185,000,000 a year. This is not the opportunity or the moment when fresh expenditure should be lightly incurred. At the present time I think it is extremely doubtful whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to find the money which is required to meet the liabilities of the country, and yet at the present moment the Postmaster-General comes down to this House and asks the House of Commons to find a sum amounting to £1,100,000. I think that is the amount which will be required under this Bill. I admit that I have often said in this House that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not consistent, and, though I regard with great suspicion the proceedings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I admit that they are not altogether on every occasion inconsistent. If there is one thing upon which they have always been insistent it is that the expenditure should be met out of the revenue of the year, and here the Postmaster-General proposes that the expenditure under this Bill shall not be met out of the revenue of the year but by loan. I can conceive the anger which would have animated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry

1729
Dalziel) if any Unionist Postmaster-General had made such a proposal as this. We should have been kept here not only until e'even o'clock, but I am afraid that hour would not have been reached while the right hon. Gentleman opposite was speaking, and probably the Postmaster-General would have been compelled to succumb to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. I am looking forward to the right hon. Gentleman taking the same line in power which he would have pursued in opposition.
I do not see how hon. Gentlemen opposite can vote for a provision such as that which I have described. I will put aside all questions as to whether the expenditure under this Bill should be met out of revenue or by loan, but, speaking with all humility, I say that the present is not a very good time to raise a loan, because Consols are now about 73, and the money market is in a state of panic; consequently this is not a good time to raise a loan. I would like to ask whether this is a favourable moment to come forward to spend money on this particular object? I have endeavoured during the years I have had the honour of a seat in this House to exercise the little influence I possess to place a restraint upon expenditure, but I have never endeavoured to restrain expenditure if I thought that that expenditure was necessary, or if I thought that the money would be spent in a proper manner. I am always most anxious to spend money if I think the object is necessary, and if I think that the money, when found and spent, will be expended in a proper way. I very much doubt whether this Bill comes within that category. This measure raises a very important question as concerns London. I am going to speak later on about the Constituency which I represent and which I think has been treated with very scant courtesy by this Bill.
Personally, I think we shall very soon see the development of a considerable amount of motor traffic in our streets. I walk about a good deal in London for my health's sake, and also because one sees a good many things in walking about the streets. One thing that has struck me more than another is the extraordinary development of motor traffic during the last few years, and that development is not confined to motor cars or motor cabs, but it is very evident that the use of motor traffic for goods is increasing very largely. I was very glad to learn last year that the Post-
1730
master-General had initiated a very large supply of Post Office motor vans. I see every day a large number of these vans in the City. On this point I should not like to misrepresent the Postmaster-General. It may be that the Post Office vans have been put upon the streets under a contract with a certain private firm, but supposing this is being done by contract, and the Post Office has not invested any capital in the provision of these vans, I presume that the contract is for a good number of years and cannot be terminated at once. Motor vans are presumably a success. I have seen two or three which have gone down as far as Brighton and other towns a considerable distance from London. If that be so, is this the moment to spend £1,100,000 on a mode of conveyance which is unnecessary if motor vans are capable of doing that which I think they are capable of doing. Nothing could be more foolish—I claim the sympathy of the Postmaster-General in this—in any enterprise than to sink a large sum in capital expenditure until you are quite certain that there is no other way of arriving at the object at which you desire to arrive. If the Postmaster-General were to spend £200,000 or £300,000 in buying motor vans, he would probably arrive at the same result as he will arrive at by spending £1,100,000 in making a sewer, or whatever it may be called, under the street, and he would arrive at it without putting everybody to the inconvenience of the streets being taken up whilst this particular tube is being sunk into the ground. During the last twenty or thirty years there has been an enormous extension of the underground railways and various tubes in London. The electrification of the Underground Railway has been a very great success and has made underground travelling very pleasant; but I remember as a young man that when the Underground was first being built we were told that congestion of the streets would be considerably diminished. Notwithstanding all the railways that have been made and which were supposed to do away with congestion of the streets, the fact remains, though I do not pretend to explain it—
Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The population has increased.
Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will follow me in the Debate and give the explanation I am unable to give. I am only stating a fact, and I say that notwithstanding the prophecies which

1731
were made as long ago as 1865, which I believe was the year of the opening of the Underground Railway, that congestion would disappear from the streets, the absolute reversal is the case, and the more tubes and underground railways we have the greater is the congestion of the streets. I therefore venture to say that the interruption is really not relevant. I wanted to ask for an explanation as to Clause 5, which says:—
"The railway may be used for the conveyance of mails and for any purpose of the Post Office."
The right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago told us that the railway would be used merely for the conveyance of the mails and the parcels of the Post Office, but that is not the effect of the Clause. The effect of the Clause is that it may be used for the conveyance of mails and for any purpose of the Post Office. I am not a lawyer, but I can quite understand the Attorney-General defending this particular Clause and saying it was thoroughly understood when the Act went through that the railway might be used for the conveyance of Post Office servants to and from their residences. If there is any possibility of that being the case, it is a very great blow against private enterprise, and it is, in fact, a breach of the understanding by which £1,300,000,000 have been invested, on behalf of the railway companies, because it was never contemplated that the Government of the day would bring in a Bill which would enable them to carry Post Office servants or any other people at the expense of the State and to the detriment of the railway companies. The Postmaster-General, a few moments ago, told us that the Land Clauses Act would apply to this Bill in exactly the same way as it applies to the railway companies. I am sorry to say that I think the Postmaster-General must have made a mistake. It is possible that I may have misunderstood him, but I do not think it is at all likely. Clause 7 is in these terms:—
"The Land Clauses Act and the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, specified in the First Schedule to this Act, shall, unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be incorporated with this Act, with the following exceptions and modifications:"
There are eight different paragraphs covering nearly two pages of exceptions to the Land Clauses Act, and yet the right
1732
hon. Gentleman a few moments ago told us that the Land Clauses Act was incorporated in this Bill exactly in the same way as it was incorporated in any ordinary Railway Bill which might come before the House. I think that we ought to have a very clear explanation of that from the Attorney-General. Clause 9 gives power to the Post Office to require owners to, sell parts only of certain property. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), dealt rather shortly with that particular point. I will not, therefore, go, into it at any great length. But I would remark that it is not fair to the owners of property. I am afraid I shall not receive much sympathy on that point from hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, but if it is put to them fairly I think that even they have a sense of justice. I say the owners of property should not be treated in a more unfair way by the State than by the railway company. I do not see why, because I happen to own a house in the City of London, a little bit of that house should be taken by the Post Office for their necessities, while at the same time a railway company could not come forward and do the same thing. I am injured. I am sure hon. Members themselves dislike being injured, whether by a railway company or by the Post Office. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that I am willing to sacrifice my property for the extension of the Post Office any more than I would do so for railway companies which, after all, carry on a public service.
Clauses 14 and 15 affect my Constituency in the City of London. They deserve some consideration. Clause 14 says that the Postmaster-General may, for the purpose of constructing the railway, enter upon, open, break up, and interfere with the surface of certain streets and places in the City of London. The first place is Finsbury Circus. There there is considerable congestion; it may not be quite so congested as the space opposite the Mansion House. But I want to know why the Postmaster-General should come forward and, without the leave of the corporation, be allowed to enter upon, open, break up, and interfere with the surface of the street. The Clause goes on to say that he may do the same in the boroughs of Holborne, Marylebone, and Stepney. So far as I know, no other body has power to come forward and say, "We choose to take up this street; we are not going to ask the local authority for permission; we shall

1733
do it without 'By your leave,' and we are going to keep it up as long as' we choose." My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) earlier in this Debate declared that the Post Office were dilatory. I venture to say that so far as this Bill is concerned they are going a little too fast. I do not think they can be alleged to be in any way dilatory. We cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that a very large number of complaints are received from the public as to the dilatory motions of the Post Office in making telephone connections. If it takes a very much longer time for the Post Office to connect a subscriber with the telephone system than it took the National Telephone Company, it follows that the Post Office may be equally dilatory in taking up the streets and laying them down. It may be that, in order to conciliate the Labour Members, nobody
employed by the Post Office in breaking up a street will be allowed to work more than eight hours, or to do too much in that time. What is going to happen while the friends of hon. Members are taking up the streets or putting them down in a leisurely fashion? There will be no power for the authorities in my Constituency to say, "We have had enough of this congestion, and we require the Post Office to proceed with their work a little more expeditiously."
Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 88.

Division No. 108.]

AYES.

10.0 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Kilbride, Denis

Adamson, William

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

King, Joseph

Agnew, Sir George William

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lardner, James C. R.

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

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

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Lundon, Thomas

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Ffrench, Peter

Lynch, A. A.

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Field, William

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Fitzgibbon, John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Barton, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

McGhee, Richard

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Gill, A. H.

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

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

Gladstone, W. G. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bentham, G. J.

Glanville, H. J.

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Black, Arthur W.

Goldstone, Frank

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Boland, John Pius

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

Bowerman, Charles W.

Greig, Colonel J.W.

Manfield, Harry

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Brace, William

Hackett, John

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hardie, J. Keir

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

Bryce, J. Annan

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Meagher, Michael

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Menzies, Sir Walter

Cawley, Harold T. (Luncs., Heywood)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Middlebrook, William

Chapple, Dr, William Allen

Hayden, John Patrick

Molloy, Michael

Clough, William

Hayward, Evan

Molteno, Percy Alport

Clynes, John R.

Hazleton, Richard

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Morgan. George Hay

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morrell, Philip

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henry, Sir Norval Watson

Morison, Hector

Cotton, William Francis

Higham, John Sharp

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Crooks, William

Hodge, John

Muldoon, John

Crumley, Patrick

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Munro, Robert

Cullinan, John

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Murphy, Martin J.

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Nolan, Joseph

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

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Nuttall, Harry

Delany, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Deviin, Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Dillon, John

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Doherty, Philip

Donelan, Captain A.

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Donnell, Thomas

Doris, William

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Duffy, William J.

Keating, Matthew

Ogden, Fred

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kelly, Edward

O'Grady, James

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Sutton, John E.

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Robinson, Sidney

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

O'Shee, James John

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Thomas, James Henry

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Rowlands, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Parker, James (Halifax)

Rowntree, Arnold

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Webb, H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pointer, Joseph

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Scanlan, Thomas

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Primrose, Hon. Nell James

Sheehy, David

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

Radford, G. H.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Winfrey, Richard

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Wing, Thomas

Reddy, Michael

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Richards, Thomas

Sutherland, John E.

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Perkins, Walter F.

Baird, John Lawrence

Grant, J. A.

Peto, Basil Edward

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Pringle, William M. R.

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

Haddock, George Bahr

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Barnes, George N.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Barnston, Harry

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Harris, Henry Percy

Rees, Sir J. D.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Helmsley, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Blair, Reginald

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

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hogge, James Myles

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Boyton, James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Butcher, John George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom

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

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Touche, George Alexander

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Kyffin-Tayior, G.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Croft, H. P.

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

Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Watt, Henry Anderson

Denniss, E. R. B.

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

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Duke, Henry Edward

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

Forster, Henry William

Newton, Harry Kottingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Gilmour, Captain John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Stanier and Viscount Dairymple.

Goldsmith, Frank

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 74.

Division No. 109.]

AYES.

[10.10 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Bentham, George Jockson

Clancy, John Joseph

Acland, Francis Dyke

Black, Arthur W.

Clough, William

Adamson, William

Boland, John Pius

Clynes, John R.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Booth, Frederick Handel

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Agnew, Sir George William

Bowerman, Charles W.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Brace, William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Cotton, William Francis

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Crooks, William

Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somersett)

Brunner, John F. L.

Crumley, Patrick

Barnes, George N.

Bryce, J. Annan

Cullinan, John

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Barton, William

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Cassel, Felix

Dawes, J. A.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Delany, William

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Dillon, John

Lundon, Thomas

Pringle, William M. R.

Donelan, Captain A.

Lynch, A. A.

Radford, G. H.

Doris, William

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

McGhee, Richard

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

Reddy, Michael

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rendall, Athelstan

Esslemont, George Birnie

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

Richards, Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

Manfield, Harry

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Ffrench, Peter

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Robinson, Sidney

Field, William

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Fitzgibbon, John

Martin, Joseph

Roe, Sir Thomas

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Rowlands, James

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Gill, Alfred Henry

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

Gladstone. W. G. C.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Glanville, Harold James

Middlebrook, William

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

Goldstone, Frank

Molloy, Michael

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Scanlan, Thomas

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sshwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

Morgan, George Hay

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Gulland, John William

Morrell, Philip

Sheehy, Davied

Hackett, John

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

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morison, Hector

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Hardie, J. Keir

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Muldoon, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harris, Henry Percy

Munro, Robert

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murphy, Martin J.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Sutherland, John E.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Sutton, John E.

Hayward, Evan

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Hazleton, Richard

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, Thomas(Bolton)

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, James Henry

Higham, John Sharp

O'Doherty, Philip

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, Thomas

Toulmin, Sir George

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Dowd, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Ogden, Fred

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Grady, James

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Watt, Henry Anderson

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

Webb, H.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Shee, James John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Whitehouse, John Howard

Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Jowett, Frederick William

Parker, James (Halifax)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Joyce, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Keating, Matthew

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Kelly, Edward

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Winfrey, Richard

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Peto, Basil Edward

Wing, Thomas

Kllbride, Denis

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wood, Ht Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

King, Joseph

Pointer, Joseph

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Lardner, James C. R.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

NOES.

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Archer-Shoe, Major Martin

Croft, Henry Page

Haddock, George Bahr

Baird, John Lawrence

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

Denison Pender, J. C.

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Barnston, Harry

Denniss, E. R. B.

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

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Doughty, Sir George

Helmsley, Viscount

Blair, Reginald

Duke, Henry Edward

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

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Fell, Arthur

Hogge, James Myles

Boyton, James

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Forster, Henry William

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Campbell, Captain Duncan (Ayr, N.)

Gilmour, Captain John

Houston, Robert Paterson

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Goldsmith, Frank

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Courthope, George Loyd

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ingleby, Holcombe

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Grant, James Augustus

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

1738

1739

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Touche, George Alexander

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

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

Ward, A. S. (Harts, Watford)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Stanier, Beville

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Perkins, Walter Frank

Starkey, John Ralph

Ratcliff, R. F.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Stewart, Gershom

F. Banbury and Mr. J. Mason

Rees, Sir J. D.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Bill accordingly read a second time.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection:
That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsels, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel or agents heard in support of the Bill:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
That three be the quorum."
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out the words "five Members," and to insert instead thereof the word "four." This is a very important reference, because it deals with private interests, and, as a matter of fact, I believe that this Bill ought to go to the ordinary Private Bill Committee, which is one of the best tribunals which we have in this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Baronet object to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee because it affects private interests?
Sir F. BANBURY: That is why I think the Bill should not be sent to a hybrid Committee.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is the usual form for sending a Bill to a Select Committee.
Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not possible to alter the usual form?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet, I think, is generally very insistent that we should follow precedent.
Sir F. BANBURY: Circumstances alter cases, and it may be necessary in dealing with this Bill, which is of rather a complicated nature, to make some alteration in the ordinary procedure applicable to ordinary Bills. I think my Amendment to leave nut the word "five" and insert the word "four" is in order, and therefore I propose that without any further remarks.
Mr. JAMES MASON: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is a most unusual Amendment to make. Of course, if the hon. Baronet moves it, I am bound to put it, but I would point out that it is altering the usual form.
Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 64.

Division No. 110.]

AYES.

[10.24 p.m.

Abraham. William (Dublin, Harbour)

Boland, John Pius

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Booth, Frederick Handel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Adamson, William

Bowerman, Charles W.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Agnew, Sir George William

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Cotton, William Francis

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Brace, William

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Brocklehurst, William B.

Crooks, William

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Brunner, John F. L.

Crumley, Patrick

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Bryce, J. Annan

Cullinan, John

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Barnes, George N.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Barnston, Harry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.W.)

Cassel, Felix

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

Barton, William

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Dawes, J. A.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Delany, William

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Clancy, John Joseph

Denniss, E. R. B.

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

Clough, William

Devlin, Joseph

Bentham, G. J.

Clynes, John R.

Dillon, John

Black,,Arthur W.

Collins. G. P. (Greenock)

Donelan, Captain A.

Doris, William

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Radford, G. H.

Duffy, William J.

Lundon, Thomas

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lynch, A, A.

Rea, Rt. Hen. Russell (South Shields)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Reddy, Michael

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

McGhee, Richard

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rendall, Athelstan

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Richards, Thomas

Falconer, James

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Manfield, Harry

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ffrench, Peter

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Robinson, Sidney

Field, William

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Fitzgibbon, John

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Roe, Sir Thomas

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Martin, Joseph

Rowlands, James

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

Rowntree, Arnold

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Meagher, Michael

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gill, Alfred Henry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

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

Glanville, Harold James

Middlebrook, William

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Goldstone, Frank

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Molloy, Michael

Scanlan, Thomas

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Hackett, John

Morgan, George Hay

Sheehy, David

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

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

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morison, Hector

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Hardie, J. Keir

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Muldoon, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Munro, Robert

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murphy, Martin J.

Stewart, Gershom

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Murray, Captain Hon, Arthur C.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

Neilson, Francis

Sutherland, John E.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Sutton, John E.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Hayward, Evan

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hazleton, Richard

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas, James Henry

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Toulmin, Sir George

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hodge, John

O'Dowd, John

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Hogue, James Myles

O'Grady, James

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Shaughnessy, P J.

Watt, Henry A.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Shee, James John

Webb, H.

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Jewett, Frederick William

Perkins, Walter F.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Joyce, Michael

Peto, Basil Edward

Winfrey, Richard

Keating, Matthew

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wing, Thomas

Kelly, Edward

Pointer, Joseph

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

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Kilbride, Denis

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Young, William (Perth, East)

King, Joseph

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Lardner, James C. R.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

Pringle, William M. R.

Gulland and Mr. W. Jones.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

NOES.

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Croft, H. P.

Haddock, George Bahr

Baird, John Lawrence

Dairymple, Viscount

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Doughty, Sir George

Helmsley, Viscount

Bird, Alfred

Duke, Henry Edward

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Blair, Reginald

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

Fell, Arthur

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Fletcher, John Samuel

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Butcher, John George

Gilmour, Captain John

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Cave, George

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ingleby, Holcombe

Courthope, George Loyd

Grant, J. A.

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

1742

1743

Lewisham, Viscount

Rees, Sir J. D.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Touche, George Alexander

Malcolm, Ian

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Newman, John R. P.

Stanier, Beville

Yerburgh, Robert A.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Starkey, John Ralph

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Ratcliff, R. F.

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

F. Banbury and Mr. Jardine.

Rawson, Col. R. H.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY.— [CONSOLIDATED FUND.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding one million one hundred thousand pounds, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Postmaster-General to construct, for the purposes of the Post Office, certain underground Railways and other works in London, and for purposes in connection with such Railways and works; and of authorising the Treasury to borrow money by means of Exchequer Bonds or terminable annuities, such annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel]
Mr. BOOTH: Before the termination of the previous discussion, I was unable to raise a point with regard to the finance of this Bill. I do not think it is a wise proceeding for the Resolution to give so much in excess, of what is estimated to be the cost of the railway. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General says he does not wish to come before the House in another year in case this amount may be exceeded. That is a reason for putting a direct, estimate, such as any business firm would have. He suggests that a certain amount should be allowed for contingencies. I should have thought that the practical precedent of a business firm would have been an excellent idea to follow. We are always accustomed to have estimates from the engineer or the manager when we sanction expenditure on work of this description, and in framing that estimate it is a most excellent check upon the engineer or the manager to know that he will need to come before the board or the heads of the firm, in case he has made a wrong estimate. As a matter of fact what we are now
1744
proposing to do is to give a margin of £140,000 for the Post Office Railway. That does not conduce to either exact estimates or economical expenditure. I think that is a margin of considerably over 10 per cent. I really cannot see that there is much force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would appeal to him whether he is not prepared to sanction a smaller sum. I should have thought if the estimate came to £960,000 that £1,000,000 would be a reasonable amount to ask. It is that extra £100,000 which we are asked to vote which leads to mischief in the expenditure of money. I am very sorry there is really no Opposition in this House to criticise the Government proposals. It is not at all a congenial thing to me, whatever it may be to other hon. Members, to intervene in this matter. I have patiently listened for two years, and I have not intervened in a matter of this kind. I have come to the conclusion that the Opposition is apparently broken spirited, and it is quite unequal to its task and prefers scampering about the country instead of remaining here and subjecting the Government estimates to severe criticism. I do not say the Opposition ought always to oppose a measure because it is brought in by the Government, but it should be their duty to attack a proposal like this and show up its weakness and ask for safeguards. They take part in Tariff Reform dinners, and while this Bill was before the House they were conspicuous by their absence. Under those circumstances, as this Opposition has forgotten that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose and criticise the expenditure of large sums of money, I make an appeal, and suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should see his way in the interests of economy and efficient administration to reduce this sum from £1,100,000 to the round million.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I am glad to find that the hon. Gentleman has begun to realise that the more popular attitude to adopt in the country is now to oppose the Government rather than to support it. He has got up to support a proposal, and I have great pleasure in supporting it, that

1745
it is in the interests of economy to vote for the reduction of this sum by £100,000. That is a very desirable thing for any Radical Member to propose, and I have very great pleasure in supporting him.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not know what the Motion of the hon. Member is. It has not been moved.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out the words "one hundred thousand."
Year after year we are asked to vote large sums of money without having proper time for discussion. What has happened with regard to the Post Office itself? The Post Office Vote has not been sanctioned for the current year. It was discussed for two or three hours, then a private Bill came on. At eleven o'clock no vote was taken, and I do not suppose that we shall have any further opportunity of discussing the matter. The evil of granting these large sums as margin is simply that the tendency on the part of engineers and architects is always to work up to the maximum. We have seen that year after year in the Estimates. A Vote for £1,000,000, which I consider too large, ought to be quite sufficient. That would give a margin, and the Department could come for the balance, if necessary. I object to the money being borrowed instead of provided out of the revenue of the year. We were told on the Post Office Vote that the right hon. Gentleman had not a shilling for the breakdown in Scotland, and he now comes forward with a proposal not only for £1,000,000, but for a margin of £140,000. For Scotland he does not care; for London a million and a half is nothing, although there is no breakdown in London, and there is a great breakdown in Scotland, involving serious loss to the commercial community every year. I do not think that it is fair or right that a Bill of this importance should be passed under the Closure, and then that we should be asked to raise this money on loan. That is a most dangerous form of expenditure, and one which when indulged in by the other side we repudiated, although we are now tumbling into it ourselves. If the Government will meet Scotland in a fair way, I am willing to come to a bargain. But I protest solemnly against voting a shilling more than is needed.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What does the hon. Member move? The only ques-
1746
tion before the Committee is the question that I have read. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury did not answer my inquiry as to what his Motion was.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Pontefract had moved a reduction of £100,000. If he did not, I shall have very great pleasure in doing so.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I take it the hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) moves to leave out the words, "one hundred thousand."
Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member, who, like the hon. Member for Pontefract, gets up in this House—for he really was the Mover of the Amendment—and says, as a business man, that it is wrong to give the Post Office a 10 per cent. margin on a big contract, takes an inadequate view of the situation. I always double estimates, and then have a 30 per cent. margin. The Postmaster-General should ask for at least 30 per cent. margin.
Mr. HOGGE: I want to support the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. M. Henderson). One labours under some kind of misunderstanding, as a private Member, as to how business is got through here. I was always under the impression that His Majesty's Opposition were opposed to this great expenditure of money, and here we find them quite docilely agreeing to this expenditure of money of over a million pounds. The money might serve a very much better purpose than is suggested. We have only certain occasions when we can make our requests known to the Government—either by deputation or in this House. The Scottish demand is a very simple one.
Mr. DENMAN: Is it in order to discuss a Scottish demand on a Motion for the provision of a tunnel in London?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the first sentence in which the words "Scottish demand" occur.
Mr. HOGGE: I am very much obliged to the premature interruption of a private secretary of the Ministerial Bench. On the few occasions on which they do speak in this House it is to support the Front Bench. Our suggestion is that this money, this million odd, is more than is required for the purpose on the statement of the Postmaster-General himself, and we suggest to him that, instead of being used in

1747
that way, it would be better that at all events a portion of it should be used on another part of the postal service. We have a continuous recurrence of a situation which is alarming to the commercial portion of the community in Scotland. I do not know whether Members of the Front Bench confine their reading entirely to London newspapers, but if they look at the Scottish rack in the News Room they would find there complaints over and over again from the community in Scotland interested in the development of the postal service, which should be continuous, and for which the Government make—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot air a Scottish grievance on the Question before the House.
Mr. HOGGE: I was coming to the point. We must bear in mind that everybody does not require this enormous margin. I suggest to the Postmaster-General there is no great hurry for getting this money to-night. He can come back to this House again after he spends the million—that is a large enough sum to play with—and if he makes out as good a case for the spending of the margin as he has made for the spending of the million no one will grudge him that sum. And, in addition, we shall have the opinion of the Estimates Committee, which will guard against anything that might otherwise require to be criticised. We will then be in a better position to judge, and probably by that time he will have money for meeting Scottish opinion.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I wish I could see my way to accept the suggestions made by hon. Members from Scotland, and so to economise so as to provide £100,000 for underground cables to Aberdeen. But I am afraid such a suggestion would not be accepted in the interests of the tax
payers. The answers to the complaints of hon. Members was supplied by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield, who pointed out that in any transaction of this character it is necessary to have a certain margin for safety. Estimates have been prepared by an exceedingly competent engineer, Mr. Dalrymple-Hay, who was called in as consulting engineer in consultation with the Post Office engineering staff. The work will be done by contract and will be put out to tender. Until the engineer ascertains the tender he cannot tell with any certainty, but it is necessary to have a sufficient margin. We cannot accept the suggestion that we ought to ask Parliament only for the precise sum, and then come back for a further Grant, because we should be unable to accept the tender in the first instance supposing that the amount of the tender was a larger sum than the engineer estimated it probably would be. This is not a question of merely voting money. A Bill has to be passed for dealing with money of this character. You cannot come to this House of Commons and put down the amount on the Estimates. One has to have a Bill for the issue of annuities of this character which must pass through all its stages, and must have a money Resolution subject to considerable discussion. I am quite certain the House would object and would condemn me roundly if after a year I came back and said I was very sorry that the money I asked for in 1913 was inadequate and I must now ask for another £80,000 or £100,000. For this reason I trust the Committee will agree it is a sound businesslike proposal, not merely to take the close estimate made by the engineers, but to allow a safe margin.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 42.

Division No. 111.]

AYES.

[10.55 P.M.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bentham, George Jackson

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Agnew, Sir George William

Bird, Alfred

Cassel, Felix

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Black, Arthur W.

Cave, George

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

Blair, Reginald

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Boland, John Pius

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Clancy, John Joseph

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Clough, William

Barnes, George N.

Brace, William

Clynes, John R.

Barnston, Harry

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Barton, William

Brunner. John F. L.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Primrose, Hon. Neil Jame

Crooks, William

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Radford, G. H.

Crumley, Patrick

Joyce, Michael

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Cullinan, John

Keating, Matthew

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kelly, Edward

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kilbride, Denis

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

King, Joseph

Reddy, Michael

Dawes, J. A.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Delany, William

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lardner, James C. R.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Denniss, E. R. B.

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

Randall, Athelstan

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Richards, Thomas

Dillon, John

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Donelan, Captain A.

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Doris, William

Lundon, Thomas

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Duffy, William J.

Lynch, A. A.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Robinson, Sidney

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

McGhee, Richard

Roe, Sir Thomas

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Rowlands, James

Elverston, Sir Harold

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

Rowntree, Arnold

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Esslemont, George Birnie

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Falconer, James

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Farrell, James Patrick

Manfield, Harry

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Scanlan, Thomas

Ffrench, Peter

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Field, William

Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

Fitzgibbon, John

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Sheehy, David

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Meehan, Patrick 1. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gill, A. H.

Middlebrook, William

Stanier, Beville

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Molloy, Michael

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Glanville, H. J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Starkey, John Ralph

Goldstone, Frank

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Morgan, George Hay

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Grant, J. A.

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

Sutherland, John E.

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Morison, Hector

Sutton, John E.

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

Muldoon, John

Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

Munro, Robert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gulland, John William

Murphy, Martin J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hackett, John

Neilson, Francis

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Haddock, George Bahr

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Thomas, James Henry

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Nolan, Joseph

Thorne, O. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Toulmin, Sir George

Hardie, J. Keir

Nuttall, Harry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Verney, Sir Harry

Harvey, A G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Doherty, Philip

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

O'Donnell, Thomas

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Dowd, John

Webb, H.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Grady, James

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Hazleton, Richard

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

Whaler, Granville C. H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Shaughnessy, P J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

O'Shee, James John

Whitehouse, John Howard

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Higham, John Sharp

Outhwaite, R. L.

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Hills, John Waller

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Winfrey, Richard

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Wing, Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Perkins, Walter F.

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Illineworth, Percy H.

Peto, Basil Edward

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Ingleby, Holcombe

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Pointer, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

NOES.

Adamson, William

Bowerman, Charles W.

Dairymple, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Boyton, James

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

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Bryce, J. Annan

Denison-Pender, J. C.

Baird, John Lawrence

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

Doughty, Sir George

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Fell, Arthur

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craik, Sir Henry

Gibbs, George Abraham

1750

1751

Goldsmith, Frank

Malcolm, Ian

Skyes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Martin, Joseph

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Newman, John R. P.

Touche, George Alexander

Helmsley, Viscount

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Watt, Henry Anderson

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Pringle, William M. R.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr

Lewisham, Viscount

Stewart, Gershom

J. M. Henderson and Mr. J. Hogge.

Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

Main Question put, and agreed to; Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Thursday).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CERTIFI- CATES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

COMMONS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order:
Ordered, That is be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power in respect of each such Provisional Order to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether with or without modification, and in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection:
Ordered, That Mr. Bentham, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Lardner, Mr. G. Butler Lloyd, and Captain Peel be Members of the Select Committee:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Mr. Gulland.]
The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.

ASSASSINATION OF GRAND VIZIER (CONSTANTINOPLE).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."ߞ[Mr. Gulland.]
Sir MARK SYKES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has received any information regarding the situation at Constantinople supervening upon the assassination of the Grand Vizier?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I am quite willing to give the House what information we have. We received a telegram from Constantinople at seven o'clock this evening, which I will paraphrase for the House.
"While driving in his motor car this morning the Grand Vizier was attacked by several unknown individuals, who shot at him. He and one of his aides-de-camp were killed. The motives of the assailants were unknown. Precautions are being taken by the military and police."
That is all we have heard.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Parliamentary Grants (Ireland).
  Parliamentary Grants (Ireland).
  St. Patrick's Training College.
  St. Patrick's Training College.
ROYAL NAVY.
  FRESH MEAT SUPPLY.
  FRESH MEAT SUPPLY.
  Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  British Guiana (Plantation Riots).
  British Guiana (Plantation Riots).
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
  Dover Harbour Improvements (Housing Working Classes).
  Dover Harbour Improvements (Housing Working Classes).
  Colour Vision Tests.
  Colour Vision Tests.
  Manufactured Articles Exported from United Kingdom.
  Manufactured Articles Exported from United Kingdom.
  Post Office Service (Educational and Technical Classes).
  Post Office Service (Educational and Technical Classes).
  Second-class Engineers (Post Office).
  Second-class Engineers (Post Office).
CAROLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Proceedings on Second Reading to be resumed on Thursday the 19th instant.
WATNEY, COMBE, REID AND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given yesterday); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
CHESTERFIELD CORPORATION RAILLESS TRACTION BILL.
The Loan CHANCELLOR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

WORTHING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no
572
parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 17th of March last and the 3rd instant discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

GOMM HEIRLOOMS BILL. [H.L.]

  MID-KENT AND EAST KENT DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.

  LYMM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read 2a, and committed.
  DUNDEE BOUNDARIES BILL.
  HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
  Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Rural District Council of Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre: Leave given to present the said Petition.
  MAC COLL'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.
  ST. ANDREWS BURGH EXTENSION AND LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill relating to St. Andrews Burgh Extension and Links—Was presented by the Lord Emmott; 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. 63.)

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS AND PAUPERISM,
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to call attention to the following passage in a speech made by the Prime Minister at Leven on January 29, in which he is reported to have said—
  And just remember by way of illustration that there are close upon a million old-age pensioners alone receiving some £12,000,000annually, though on the other side of the account it should not be forgotten that outdoor pauperism has been concurrently reduced by no less than 94 per cent.";
  and to ask whether the facts and statistics upon which this statement was founded can be made available to the Rouse. Whether a Return could be prepared showing the number of persons of seventy years of age and upwards who have become chargeable to the Poor-law authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and some of the larger centres of population in Scotland since the commencement of the Old-Age Pensions Act. Also a Return showing the number of persons enrolled as members of approved societies who, although they have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act, have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow between January 15 and the end of May.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions which I have put on the Paper will, I think, be admitted to deal with matters which concern large and important points of public policy. I do not propose to go over the wide field of debate which they would seem to indicate, because my object to-day is not to criticise or to find fault so much as to ask for information. There may be points in which criticism may be necessary and even complaint may be justifiable, but I am quite sure that even those who are responsible for either the Old-Age Pensions Act or the National Insurance Act will agree with me that it is to the advantage of both sides that before criticism is passed or fault is found we should have as near as possible an agreement upon the actual facts.
  The first Question standing in my name on the Paper has reference to a passage in a speech which is reported to have been made by the Prime Minister at Leven, in his constituency, in the early weeks of the present year. As it stands, it is perfectly obvious to any one who knows anything about these things that there must be a
  574
  mistake somewhere. The Old-Age Pensions Act, of course, only applies to those who are above 70 years of age, and therefore the proportion, 94 per cent., by which it has been alleged that outdoor pauperism has been reduced in consequence of that Act is manifestly absurd; because it cannot be, even if the whole of those chargeable to the Poor-law above 70 years of age had been completely taken off the list of poor, that pauperism could have been reduced by the amount claimed. There-fore I assume that there must have been an error in the report, and that, even if correctly reported, the claim made by the Prime Minister must have been that 94 per cent. of persons over 70 years of age who were in receipt of Poor-law relief had been taken away. I believe that even that is an undue claim, at any rate so far as Scotland is concerned. All on that point I want to know is this, whether we can have the facts and statistics on which this statement was based in order that we may be able to judge of its accuracy or the reverse for ourselves. It is not absolutely stated that the claim is in respect of Scottish pauperism. The speech was made in Scotland, and therefore I assume that it referred to Scottish statistics. It has been suggested to me since I put the Question on the Paper that it may not have had reference to Scotland, but whether to Scotland or England I still hope that we may be allowed to see the facts and figures on which this claim is made.
  Another of the Questions which I have put down has reference to the Insurance Act. I am anxious in this matter to be absolutely and perfectly fair. It is quite possible that in the early weeks and months of the operation of the Insurance Act things may not have been wholly in working order; but 1 have been supplied with a list of individuals, twenty-two in number, who it is represented to me are members of approved societies whose contributions have been fully paid up, both for employer and employed, during the months from January to May, and I am informed that in all these twenty-two cases these individuals have become chargeable to the Poor-law and no recompense has been made by the approved societies to the Poor-law authorities who have discharged the duties in connection with them. I will not, of course, read the list. I can only say that it seems to me to be thoroughly well authenticated. The

  575
  names of the approved societies with whom these people were insured are given. I have obtained the list from the Inspector of Poor for Edinburgh, and I have no reason to doubt that it is absolutely accurate.
  What I am anxious to know is whether we can be informed of the number of enrolled members of approved societies who have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act but have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I add Glasgow as a thoroughly typical large centre of population in the west of Scotland, in order that we may know as far as we possibly can to what extent the Insurance Act in this matter is really fulfilling the obligations undertaken on behalf of it and the promises which have been made in respect of it. I think it is possible—I make this as a conjecture—that the individuals whom I have mentioned may have been casual labourers; they may have been lodged in lodging-houses and may have fallen ill and had to be removed at the instance of the sanitary or medical authorities to the poorhouse. But, even so, there is a failure on the part of the approved society to undertake its obligations; and even if the society is not ready to do it the. Poor-law authorities ought to be recompensed at the expense of the society. It does not seem to me fair that all these claims should be made of the amount of reduction of pauperism, and yet when people whose; contributions have been fully paid become chargeable to the Poor-rate the burden should not be borne in the right quarter. No one would suggest that anything but the promptest relief should be given, and at the expense of the Poor-law authorities if necessary. It is their duty to do it if no one else can step in and do it at the moment. No sort of delay should take place. But I do think, if it be the case that the Poor-law authorities have clone the work, that the approved society to whom the contributions have been paid should not be excused of the burden for which they have received the premiums.
  The other Question relates to an even larger matter, to old-age pensioners. From the city of Edinburgh I have received a list of between forty and fifty individuals chargeable there to the Poor-law in the
  576
  first five months of the present year. In this case a certain amount of recompense has been made. Some small proportion of the cost has been repaid at the expense of the old-age pension which otherwise would have gone into the pockets of the individuals; but it is only, as I am informed, a comparatively small sum which has been so recovered from the pension authorities. I am told—and this I put forward rather for the purpose of inquiry than assertion—by the Poor-law authorities that great difficulties are put in their way in the recovery of the sum from the pension authorities when the old-age pensioner has become chargeable to the Poor-law. I believe it is paid with comparative promptitude if the pensioner is in the hospital, but not otherwise. It does not seem to me fair that a person should become chargeable to the Poor-law and that while he is so chargeable his pension should accumulate and that when he ceases to become chargeable he should then he able to go to the pension authorities and draw all the arrears of pension that have been accumulating and put the money in his pocket, and the Poor-law authorities should have no recompense. Again I am told that if an aged individual is for a long period chargeable—I believe the period is twelve weeks—to the Poor-law, then the pension is withdrawn altogether. I am not quite sure what is the reason underlying that course of policy, if it is so. It may be justifiable or it may not. I am asking for information whether that is the case, and, if so, on what point of public policy it is justified. As I have said already, I do not want to criticise until we know the facts; but I submit that under all the circumstances in which we are placed and in view of the great claims which are put forward in respect of this Act to the credit of the Government we are entitled to know exactly how the matter stands, what is the policy of the Government, the policy of the Insurance Commissioners, and of those who administer the old-age pension funds.
  We were told that the Old-Age Pensions Act would empty our workhouses. I wish it would. Mr. Charles Booth was credited with the belief that it would be possible to do away with outdoor relief altogether. Some people held out hopes that the granting of a pension at 70 would be a great incentive to self-maintenance until that age is reached. We have not had

  577
  long enough time to judge, but if all the reports which reach me are correct—and I am in touch with Poor-law authorities in various parts of Scotland, haying been chairman of my local Poor-law authority for forty-three years, during the whole of which time I have attended two-thirds of the meetings and therefore know well the difficulties which are encountered by those who have to administer the Poorlaw—I am very much afraid that this hope about self-maintenance up to 70 is not being fulfilled. When all the facts and figures are made known I am afraid it will be found that a good many people are going on the Poor-law before the age of 70 who would not have done so under former circumstances. There ought to be, and the Government ought to see that there is, as complete co-operation as possible between the authorities who have to administer the respective funds in question; and those who are dealing with the same class of people, often with the same individuals, should know as far as possible what each other is doing.
  It is an English instance; but since I took up this point a pamphlet, reprinted from the Economic Journal of December last, has been sent to me by a Mr. Bailward, and on page ILI of this pamphlet there appears this pregnant passage. It refers to London, and therefore may not be strictly germane to the Question on the Paper, which refers to Scotland. But this is what is stated in the pamphlet—
  "In at least one London union careful statistics have been kept since the Old-Age Pensions Act came into operation, with the result that in the case of that union 240 pensioners have received relief from the guardians, and of this number 136 came into the workhouse or infirmary, 29 received both indoor and outdoor medical relief, and 75 outdoor medical relief only. Many of these cases here relieved for unbroken periods varying from six to twelve months. Several have been continuously receiving relief since taking their pension. In all these cases, except in six, When the pensioners came into the workhouse they continued to receive their pension.…Notwithstanding the Chancellor's s7aternent that guardians could get an officer nominated to receive the pension, every obstacle has been placed in their way by the pension authority, who apparently look upon the guardians as a hostile authority. This lack of co-operation is most unfortunate. In one case a pensioner was admitted to the infirmary suffering from senile debility and in a verminous condition. The relieving; officer found that he had been living with a woman much younger than himself, who retained the pension book for her use. He reported the case to the pension officer, who said that it was 'no business of his'"
  578
  I venture to say that if any of that is at all approaching the truth it is quite time that somewhat different instructions were given. I do not say that it is absolutely accurate. There may be another side to it. But I do say that, taking the facts and figures which I have given the House from Scotland and this quotation from a London union, it is time we had more information than we have at the present time, and I make an appeal to the Government to give us as much information as possible in order that we may see the trend of their policy.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord who has asked these Questions today that it is very desirable that we should as far as possible agree about the facts, and I have much pleasure in giving him the facts on which the statement of the Prime Minister to which he has referred was based. The exact number of old-age pensioners in the United Kingdom on the last Friday in March, 1912, was 942,160, and at the same date in 1913 was 967,921. The provision made for the payment of old-age pensions in this year's Estimates is £12,538,000. The figure of 94 per cent.—and this is the point about which the noble Lord is really inquiring—mentioned by the Prime Minister had reference, as was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place recently, and as, I think, is clear from the context, to the effect of old-age pensions on outdoor pauperism among people of 70 years of age and upwards.
  The actual figure of 94 per cent. relates to England and Wales, the reduction in the number of persons over 70 receiving outdoor relief being from 168,096, a figure which was obtained in the year 1906 when a census was taken for the Royal Commission on the Poor-law, to 9,530 in 1912. That is a reduction in England and Wales of 94 per cent. I can give the noble Lord the reference to the Blue-books in which these figures appear if he desires. For Scotland there was a reduction in outdoor poor of 70 years of age and upwards from 13,860 in January, 1909, when the number of paupers over 70 years of age was first ascertained, to 2,324 in September, 1912—a reduction of 83 per cent. for that different period in Scotland. The reason why the figure

  579
  cannot be given for 1906 in Scotland is that the figures were taken between 65 and 75 years of age; there was no dividing line at 70 years of age. I ought to explain also that in a considerable proportion of the cases the relief granted consisted only of medical relief. That is my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question.
  I now turn to the second part, in which he inquires whether a Return could be prepared showing the number of persons of 70 years of age and upwards who have become chargeable to the Poor-law authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen, and some of the larger centres of population in Scotland since the commencement of the Old-Age Pensions Act. I am informed that the number of persons aged 70 years and upwards who were in receipt of parochial relief, indoor and outdoor, from the Poor-law authorities of the parishes of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and twenty-three other large centres of population on January 15, 1913, was 2,356, of whom 1,658 were in poor-houses, 228 were old-age pensioners in receipt of medical relief, and 470 were outdoor paupers. The actual Return which the noble Lord suggests would, I think, be more troublesome and expensive to make than its value when made would really justify; but I have a Return which I shall be very glad to hand to him showing the details of the figures of the twenty-seven large centres of population in Scotland on which the totals that I have just given him are based.
  The noble Lord has made some criticism upon the Old-Age Pensions Act. It is not my intention to-day to enter upon any general discussion of that question, neither would it be my business to do so; but the particular complaints that he has mentioned refer to general questions which arise, or are apt to arise, equally in England as in Scotland. I am not able to answer him in reference to the individual cases which he mentioned to-clay, of which I heard for the first time; but perhaps I may make one or two general observations on the questions raised in the remarks that the noble Lord addressed to the House. The subject which he has introduced is a very thorny and difficult one. Not the least formidable part of it is that serious objection would probably be taken in many
  580
  quarters to a close association between Poor-law administration and old-age pension administration as being contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the old-age pension legislation in this country.
  Complaints are being made on the question to which the noble Lord referred by Poor-law authorities in this country and no doubt also in Scotland, and the complaints usually fall under two headings. In the first place, as regards the receipt of disqualifying Poor-law relief, instances are known where old-age pensioners have managed to evade the provisions of the Act, and on their discharge from the institution have withdrawn the arrears of pension which accumulated during their stay. In the second place, as regards medical relief, which does not generally disqualify, it is possible either for the pensioner to allow his pension to accumulate during his sojourn in the Poor-law infirmary and withdraw it in a complete sum on coming out and perhaps spend it upon an orgy, or to arrange for the pension to be received by a member of his family while he is in the Poor-law institution. Proposals have been put forward for the total abolition of the Poor relief disqualification and for payment of the pension to the authorities during the period of chargeability to the rates. This would transfer large responsibilities from the Poor-law authorities to the State, and I do not think it would be advisable under existing circumstances. It has also been suggested that medical relief as well as ordinary Poor-law relief should disqualify for pension. On administrative grounds, of course, there is something to be said for the latter proposal, but on other grounds there are really serious objections. Particularly I may mention the hardship to the pensioner of losing the pension during temporary illness. So much as regards the question of an alteration in the law.
  I would now like to say one or two words about the administration of the law. As regards evasion in respect of Poor relief certain precautions are taken. The pension officer has to visit the pensioner in his home at intervals, and in Scotland the Poor-law authorities notify the pension officer if the pensioner becomes chargeable on the rates, and in return the pension officer notifies the Poor-law authorities in any specific instance whether or not the

  581
  individual is an old-age pensioner. I am not maintaining that the position is altogether satisfactory. Recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation on the subject from the Association of Poor-law Unions and the. Central Committee of Poor-law Conferences, and promised to give consideration to the subject of administrative changes, but he was not able at that interview to adopt any of the specific proposals that were put before him.
  As regards pensioners in receipt of medical relief, I may refer to a reply given by my right hon. friend Mr. McKinnon Wood when lie was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in answer to a Question by Mr. Hicks Beach in another place on November 15, 1911. The substance of that reply was that any assignment of a pension is invalid in view of Section 6 of the Old-Age Pensions Act; and that if the pension is drawn by an agent the agent must pay over the money to the pensioner forthwith, in accordance with the undertaking given on each occasion on drawing the pension on the pensioner's behalf. It is, of course, difficult to enforce that provision unless the pensioner himself complains of any default in regard to it. Moreover, if the money passes into the pensioner's hands the guardians appear to have power to appropriate, so that the practical state of the case is this. An old-age pensioner may appoint as his agent a Poor-law official, who in that case would pay the money over to the Poor-law authorities. He may, on the other hand, appoint a friend or relative to draw his pension, who would in that case have to pay the money over in the same way to the Poor-law authority. The pensioner may, however, allow the pension to accumulate, and he can draw it up to three months limit when he leaves the Poor-law infirmary. There is the further possibility, if the circumstances do not come to the notice of the pension officer, that the pensioner may appoint an outside agent, who by arrangement does not pay over the money hut expends it on the pensioner's behalf, for example in the payment of rent. I have admitted that the position is not very satisfactory, but the difficulties appear to be inherent in the system of allowing concurrent receipt of pension and medical relief; but, as I have already stated, there are formidable objections to the abolition of that system. What I can say
  582
  about the matter is that the class of cases is not very numerous. I think the worst case is where the pension accumulates and may be spent in a night's dissipation after it is drawn, but this case is met to some extent by the provision that the accumulation can only take place for three months. Every effort is made in the administration of this Act to avoid abuse as far as possible.
  I now turn to the noble Lord's third Question. The noble Lord asks whether a Return can be granted showing the number of persons enrolled as members of approved societies who, although they have paid the whole of their contributions under the Insurance Act, have had to be relieved at the expense of the ratepayers in Edinburgh and Glasgow between January 15 and the end of May. In regard to this Question, I can only give the noble Lord the figures. I did not know what he was going to say, and therefore I have only been provided in this case with the figures, which I shall be very glad to give to him. I am informed that the number of fully paid up members of approved societies under the National Insurance Act who have been relieved by the parish council of Edinburgh between January 15 and May 31 of this year is 46; the number for the parish council of Glasgow is 490. I believe that the two figures are prepared on the same basis, but I am not quite certain. I think I ought to say that in addition 150 fully insured persons were granted relief by the latter parish council on behalf of wives and children, the occasion of the application being in most cases physical or mental illness. I have only one observation to make about these figures. Of the 490 insured persons who have received Poor relief in Glasgow more than nine-tenths were relieved in institutions, either in the poor-houses or in asylums. Section 12 of the National Insurance Act provides for the stopping of the payment of sickness, disablement, and maternity benefit to the insured person whilst such person is an inmate of a poor-house or asylum, and the money which the insured person would otherwise have received is to be used primarily for the relief or maintenance of his dependents. I apologise for having occupied so much time in answering the noble Lord's Questions, but my excuse must be that I was anxious to give him the fullest information in my possession.

  INSURANCE COMMISSION REGULATIONS.
  *LORD SANDERSON*LORD SANDERSON rose to ask His Majesty's Government—
  1. What is the number of Orders, Rules, Provisional Regulations, and Regulations applicable to England which have been issued by the National Health Insurance Commission and other Public Departments under the provisions of Parts I and II respectively of the National Insurance Act, 1911, since the Act was passed.
  2. Whether it can be stated how many of these have been altogether superseded by those subsequently issued, and how many remain wholly or partly in operation and have statutory force as part of the Act.
  3. Whether the Orders, Rules, and Regulations applicable to Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are substantially identical with those in force in England, and whether the dates assigned to them are the same as or different from the latter.
  4. Whether it will shortly be possible for the Insurance Commissioners and other Departments to issue codified sets of these enactments suitable for the use of the general public, and provided with an Index similar to that which has been compiled for the Act itself.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask permission to detain the House for a few minutes only while I explain my reasons for putting the Questions which stand in my name on the Paper. I wish to disclaim any suggestion that blame is to be imputed to the Health Insurance Commissioners because they have issued a large number of Regulations in a somewhat unsystematic manner. The Act required a complicated code, and the Government decided to put it in force in a manner which made it necessary to issue Regulations piecemeal as occasion arose. But the Act has now been in existence for eighteen months; it has been in force for eleven months, and it seems time that we should take stock and see where we are. There is a good deal of irritation on the subject, not at all due to Party faction, which might be removed by some clear declaration of what is intended.
  I may, perhaps, be allowed to relate one or two of my own personal experiences. As chairman of the council of the Charity
  584
  Organisation Society I have had to preside at a number of meetings and consultations of charitable societies affected by the Act. When any question as to the provisions of the Act itself was raised it was easy to refer to them by means of the Index which has been presented to Parliament. But if there were questions as to the wording of Regulations or Circulars nobody dreamed of attempting to refer to them on the spot. It was hopeless to burrow in a pile which one of the secretaries tells me is now about ten inches thick. The matter had to be left for subsequent research and study. In February last the secretary of a suburban Charity Organisation Committee, a very hard-working young lady, wrote to me and told me that she was constantly being brought face to face with problems arising out of Parts I and II of the Act, and she asked whether I could recommend to her any book which would enable her to get a knowledge of its provisions. As regards Part II there was little difficulty. There were a single Leaflet, two Pamphlets, and two sets of Regulations issued by the Board of Trade. But as regards Part I the case was very different. There was a "Handbook to the Administration of Sickness and Maternity Benefits by Approved Societies," a volume of eighty pages with a most inadequate table of contents but with useful side headings. There was an index to this handbook and to certain Circulars; it was not for sale but could be procured from the Insurance Commissioners on application by favoured people. I thought it better to ask an expert to advise me as to the books to he supplied to this young lady, and he recommended a set of books costing in all about 15 s. This seems to me an excessive price to pay in order to be able to master this measure. The Insurance Commissioners have issued a list of their official publications extending over 12½ pages and containing about 150 items. But, of course, these are not all Regulations. A good many of them are other papers. On the other hand, the list does not by any means include all the Regulations.
  One of my reasons for putting down the first three Questions is that Regulations for various parts of the United Kingdom have been poured upon us in such profusion that I think a good many of your Lordships have come to believe that they are like the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude. Now the case

  585
  is not so bad as that, and I thought it would be useful to know exactly what are the facts and what the work of codification entails. As regards the need for it I think there can be no doubt. I will trouble the House with only a few instances. I think that the Regulation which affects most of us is that respecting payment of contributions. There were Provisional Regulations issued on May 22 of last year, and I studied them carefully. On January 20 of this year definitive Regulations came, out. They were not the same as the Provisional Regulations, but there was nothing to show how they differed, and it necessitated a process of collation to find out what changes had been made. One thing became evident when you looked at the end of the Regulations. Form 6 had entirely disappeared. It had somehow been absorbed in Form 4. There was an additional Form 7a, but Form 6 had gone out altogether. That is a detail, but it is rather confusing to find that the forms go in number from 5 to 7.
  There have been a number of Regulations issued as to subsidiary employments which do not necessitate insurance. Four of those were issued at different times last year, and it seemed that the tale was told; but in February of this year a fall of snow occurred, and it was found that people employed by local authorities to remove snow were not included in the Regulations, and therefore a fresh Provisional Regulation was issued. It consisted of a page and a-half of what I may call prelude, and the final four lines were the operative part of it. It cannot be doubted that it is most desirable that these Regulations should be codified. Quite recently Provisional Regulations were issued on outworkers, and they were of such a nature that I am sure if some noble and learned Lords had perused them they would have said something about their being the worst specimen they had seen of legislation by reference. I will read one passage—
  "For the purposes of the principal Regulations notice given under paragraph (1) of Regulation 3 of the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Regulations (England), 1912, shall be deemed to he a notice of entry duly given under paragraph (1) of Regulation 3 of the principal Regulations, and in die case of any such notice the proviso to paragraph (4),of Regulation 3 of the principal Regulations shall have effect as though the date of the commencement of the period of currency in which the notice took effect were substituted for the 13th day of January, 1913."
  586
  I think it will be evident from this that the sooner codified sets of these enactments are issued the better.
  The noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House called my attention to the fact that as regards Part II the Board of Trade have already codified the Regulations. They have done it in a manner which leaves nothing to be desired. All the parts where the first Regulations have been altered by the second set of Regulations are inserted in italics, and the whole is perfectly intelligible and clear. Part II of the Act has not been indexed, nor have these Regulations been indexed. But really Part II has nothing whatever to do with Part I, and I never understood why they were put together; and if the Board of Trade, which is a most business-like Department, thinks it unnecessary that the two parts should be classed together, and that an index to Part II is not required, I should be the first to accept their opinion. But as regards Part I the matter is different, and I cannot help feeling that in this matter the Government have a duty, first of all, to the great body of insured persons. The Government have forced 15,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects to come into this insurance scheme, and it surely is incumbent on them to see that these insured people get the advantages to which they arc entitled will the least amount of difficulty and delay. On the other hand, it has entered into partnership with the friendly societies. The officers of these societies are men of very little leisure, of no great technical education, but of immense goodwill, and it really is a public duty that these men should be as little as possible embarrassed by a series of confusing and technical Regulations, and that what they have to do should be made as clear as possible to them. I beg to ask the Questions which stand in my name.
  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, I have nothing to complain of in the way in which the noble Lord has brought this subject before your Lordships' House. He is well qualified to do so, for we are all aware of his great experience in all matters of administration. The noble Lord himself said that he is not finding fault with the Insurance Commissioners, because he quite realises that they have had very heavy work laid upon them to bring into force as quickly as possible an Act which is very far-reaching

  587
  indeed and which we are all aware from the necessities of the case is highly complicated, dealing as it does with a large number of people under varying conditions. As to the Act having caused irritation, I think that was unavoidable owing to the difficulties attending the bringing of this great measure into force. The noble Lord complained of the want of codification. I can assure him that the Insurance Commissioners are at present considering whether it is possible and desirable to codify the various Regulations.
  LORD SANDERSON: I did not complain. I merely said that I hoped they were thinking about it and going to do it.
  LORD STRACHIE: I quite recognise that the noble Lord threw no blame upon the Commissioners, who he recognised were doing their best. I will now give the noble Lord detailed answers to the four Questions which he has placed on the Paper. As regards Part II, as the noble Lord said, he has been in communication with my noble friend the Master of the Horse, who represents the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately the noble Earl was unable at the last moment to come down to the House to-day, and he has asked me to read his answer, which I will do presently, as regards the question affecting Part II.
  It will be convenient to take Questions 1 and 2 together. Under the provisions of Part I of the National Insurance Act 42 Provisional Regulations applicable to England have been made by the Joint Committee and the English Commission alone or jointly. Twenty-three of these remain in force, and 19 of them have been made substantive. Twenty-six Substantive Regulations (including the 19 above referred to) have been made by the Joint Committee and the English Commission alone or jointly. Thus 49 Regulations in all are in force. Five Substantive Regulations bearing on Part I of the Act have been made by other Departments—the Treasury, Inland Revenue, Board of Trade, and Local Government Board—one of them superseding a Provisional Regulation. The English Commission have made one set of Rules as to the conduct of Special Order inquiries. Two sets of Rules have also been made as to procedure in the County Courts under Sections 66 and 68 respectively. Eighteen Provisional Special Orders have been made, two of
  588
  which are amended editions of Provisional Special Orders. Two Provisional Special Orders were superseded by Substantive Special Orders, three in all having, been issued. Under Section 78 154 Orders. have been made by the Joint Committee or the English Commission, including 129 Orders and further Orders in identical form (mutatis mutandis) with reference to the constitution of Provisional Insurance Committees. The Local Government Board have issued two Orders.
  Then as regards Question 3, the Regulations, Orders, etc., applicable to Scotland, Ireland, and Wales in many cases are substantially identical with those applicable to England, but in some cases they differ owing to the circumstances of the different countries. The dates in most cases are not the same as those assigned to the English Regulations, Orders, etc., but as a rule they do not differ by any considerable period.
  In Question 4 the noble Lord asks whether it will shortly be possible for the Insurance Commissioners and other Departments to issue codified sets of these enactments. A volume containing the Statutory Rules and Orders issued in connection with Part I of the National Insurance Act during 1912 has already been issued. This contains all the Orders, Tables, Rules, and Substantive Regulations with a note of all the Provisional Regulations (which are not technically Statutory Rules and Orders) which were still in force on December 31,1912. The question of consolidating and publishing the Regulations together when they have all become substantive is under consideration.
  The answer, so far as Part II of the Act (Unemployment Insurance) is concerned, is as follows. Six sets of Regulations and two Special Orders have been made by the Board of Trade. In addition, two sets of Regulations have been made by the Treasury and two Orders in Council have been made for adapting the Regulations to workmen in the service of the Admiralty and the Army Council respectively. The Unemployment Insurance Regulations, 1912, have been amended by the Unemployment Insurance (Supplementary) Regulations, 1913, but subject to this all the Regulations and Orders referred to remain wholly in force and have statutory effect as part of the Act. All the Regulations and Orders are applicable to the

  589
  whole of the United Kingdom. A publication has been prepared by the Board of Trade containing Parts II and III of the Act, with Schedules, an Explanatory Memorandum, and Statutory Regulations, Rules, and Orders in connection with unemployment insurance. This includes all the Regulations and Orders made by the Board of Trade; it is provided with a Table of Contents and is published by His Majesty's Stationery Office at the price of threepence.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: May I venture to suggest that the statement which has just been read to the House by the noble Lord might be conveniently presented to us in the form of a Paper. It was not easy for us to follow the figures, and I for one was quite unable to gather the grand total of this immense series of documents which have been laid before the public.
  LORD STRACHIE: Certainly; His Majesty's Government will be only too glad to comply with the noble Marquess's request. The figures shall be circulated as a White Paper with the Minutes.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Master of the Horse must be one of the most gifted members of His Majesty's Government, because not only is he responsible for the Royal stables and for answering on behalf of the Admiralty in your Lordships' House, but he is also responsible for replying to Questions concerning the complications of the Insurance Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: For replying for the Board of Trade, but not for the Insurance Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know which member of His Majesty's Government is responsible for answering for the Insurance Commissioners. But in such a Return as we have been promised I venture to think it would be of the greatest possible use if it could be made quite plain to the secretaries of approved societies, whose characteristics have been so admirably described by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, which of these Orders, Rules, and Regulations are no longer in force, so that they may weed the file which has accumulated. I know from personal experience that these secretaries are in
  590
  some cases simply dazed—that is the only word which describes their situation—by the communications they have received from the Insurance Commissioners. They have taken great pains to master the general details of the Act, but they have quite given up endeavouring to follow the Regulations issued by the Insurance Commissioners. I do not for one moment wish to imply any criticism of the Commissioners any more than my noble friend does. We all know the extreme difficulty of the task which they have to fulfil. But the condition of these secretaries, as I think the noble Lord will know from his local experience, is in some cases almost deplorable.

  THE NATURALISATION LAWS.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the present position of the question of naturalisation which was discussed at the last meeting of the Imperial Conference.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the last meeting of the Imperial Conference this question of naturalisation was dealt with and much public interest was excited in the matter; and no wonder, because I do not think the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office will contradict me when I say that the naturalisation laws of the Empire are in a state of chaos. It is quite impossible for any ordinary man to know where he is naturalised and where he is not. For instance, drawing on my South African experience, I remember that a man who had been naturalised in Cape Town was not naturalised either in England or in the Transvaal. It is a very pretty conundrum, When is a man a British subject and when is he not. Therefore it was with great satisfaction that those of us who are interested in this subject saw it alluded to in one of his Majesty's Speeches from the Throne at the opening of either last session or the session before. But since that time we have heard nothing further about it, and I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies could inform the House how the question now stands, and whether there is any hope of His Majesty's Government being able before long to lay before the country the solution to which the Empire, I hope, will have agreed.
  *LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree with the noble Earl that the question of naturalisation is a very important one, and that it is at present in a state of chaos. Practically a system of Imperial naturalisation applicable to the whole of the Empire does not exist. The subject was discussed, as the noble Earl has stated, in 1911, and a general agreement on the principles of a measure was arrived at and recorded in a series of resolutions. But this matter, when you come to details and to the drafting of a Bill, takes considerable time to settle, inasmuch as correspondence is somewhat lengthy when it must be carried on with Dominions at the other side of the globe. All I can say at the moment is that correspondence on the re-drafted Bill is still proceeding, and that we hope there will soon be complete agreement. At the moment I cannot go into details, and I do not think it would be convenient or for the public good that I should do so. All I can say is that we hope very soon to produce an agreed-upon Bill.

  THE UGANDA RAILWAY.
  *LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the state of congestion on the Uganda railway, and to move for Papers. In doing so it will not be necessary for me to enter into the past history of the railway, as it will be within the recollection of most of your Lordships that the line was originally constructed for political purposes and more or less to suppress the slave trade. Since those days, however, the whole aspect both of East Africa and of Uganda has changed, and a considerable amount of development has gone on in both countries. The Uganda railway is now a great artery of the Empire and has become a considerable commercial asset; and I should like it to be clearly understood that in any remarks I make this evening I wish to direct no criticism whatever to the authorities who work the railway.
  Let me deal first of all with the two ports of Kilindini and Mombasa, where there is a serious state of congestion. In the year ended June 30, 1912, 686 steamers, representing a tonnage of 1,500,000, entered the ports; this was an increase of 75 steamers and 206,000 tons—an increase in the volume of trade in five years of 75 per cent. This increase is going on steadily. The German East-
  592
  Africa Line are now running boats of 8,000 tons; the Union Castle Line are putting on boats of 10,000 tons; while the Messageries Maritimes are accelerating their service, and their example is being followed by all the other lines which trade with the East African ports. I may also say that a great many of the ships leaving London do so with full cargoes, and many shipments are left behind because of lack of accommodation. We hear many stories of plans for the improvement of the ports to which I am referring, and Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, who early in the year spent a week-end in the Colony, wrote several articles to The Times in which he mentioned a sum of £600,000 which was going to be spent; but, as far as I can make out, nothing has been done. And in the Report for the year ended June last of the East Africa Protectorate I find, on page 16—
  "Work has not yet been begun on the deep water pier at Kilindini, it having been deemed necessary to submit the matter for report by the consulting engineers. The present wharf and general facilities for handling cargo, including lighterage accommodation, have proved inadequate, and with the sudden rush of trade great congestion of traffic has resulted. Remedial measures are, however, now being adopted. The port of Kilindini is in the meantime being used to its fullest capacity, especially for export purposes. Its increasing popularity has prevented an absolute block at the port of Mombasa, but there also the congestion is serious. A growing import and export trade through native development is assured, and if in addition a large import and export trade is built up by white settlement, extensive improvements even on a larger scale than is now contemplated would appear to be amply justified at Kilindini."
  I also find it stated later down on the same page of the Report that—
  "Improved means of communication, by which districts hitherto practically inaccessible are being opened up, must result in a still further increased volume of exports and imports."
  Now let me turn to the railway itself. I find that for the same year ended June, 1912, the total tonnage hauled rose from 77,000 to 115,000 tons; and the number of passengers carried rose front 403,000 to 442,000. The tonnage carried by the steamers on the Victoria-Nyanza rose from 33,000 to 43,000 tons. According to the latest official information I have been able to get, the receipts on the railway up to the end of last March showed an increase of 1,500,000 rupees, I suppose gross, which is roughly £100,000. The Report for last year, from which I have already quoted, referring to the railway, says—
  "The lighter wharfs and new sheds at Kilindini proved useful within limitations, but the accom-

  593
  modation and the facilities for handling merchandise are at present totally inadequate to meet the rapidly increasing traffic of the port."
  Then at the end the Report speaks rather mole hopefully, for it says—
  "Speaking generally, the year's progress from a railway point of view has been very considerable, and the preparations made to meet still greater development in the immediate future will largely conduce to the prosperity of the country, to which an efficient railway service is absolutely necessary. The provision of funds lately made under the grant has removed any anxiety, and the future may be contemplated with confidence, as we can now guarantee that all reasonable requirements in the way of rolling stock, locomotives, and steamers will be met."
  I am not quite sure that that cheery optimism is exactly justified. I am told that of the new engines which have been ordered there are some twenty of a large type capable of hauling considerable loads, but they are too heavy for the bridges between Nairobi and the lake and can only be run between Nairobi and the coast. I do not know whether that is true or not. Another statement in the railway report is that—
  "The export of cotton and cotton seed from Uganda was beyond expectations, and it is predicted that even larger quantities will be exported luring 1913–14 if adequate provision is made in the way of roads, piers, and sheds, the demand for which is strongly emphasised."
  I find another rather disturbing statement as regards the future in a speech made the other day by Mr. Laurence R. Philipps, the chairman of the British East Africa Corporation, who said, addressing the June meeting of the shareholders—
  "Owing to congestion on the steamers and railways in Uganda and British East Africa, it had been impossible to move much of their produce up and down the line. The corporation had had cotton and other produce, which the Government had accepted for shipment across the lake and to the coast, lying at the wharf for three, four, and live months. There was an absolute lack of the necessary facilities for transport. Whenever the question was raised the Government replied that it was not possible to obtain money for providing the requisite locomotives and wagons."
  Mr. Philipps does not seem quite so confident of the future as does Mr. Lyttelton, and I do not think that either Mr. Philipps or the company of which he is chairman can be counted among the hostile critics of the Government, for it may be remembered at the Colonial Office that this company was at its inception a kind of adopted child of the Government of that day.
  These difficulties and this congestion have occurred with existing traffic. I
  594
  would like to know, not what the Government are going to do to meet the traffic non the main line now, but what they are going to do to cope with the traffic which will ensue from the feeders which they are now providing. The Government have on the stocks, I believe, two new steamers for the Victoria-Nyanza. They have built the Jinja-Kakindu railway in Uganda to bring traffic from Lake Kioga, where there are two steamers, some fifty lighters, and where, like Oliver Twist, people are asking for more; while the Government Report itself says that additional rolling-stock is already required. Then there is a railway being built front Port Bell to Kampala and front Nairobi to Fort Hall. Trade is increasing everywhere; and last, but certainly not least, a cable was received in this country the other day saying that the railway from the main line to Magadi was being completed. This railway alone is to bring some 160,000 tons to the Uganda railway, which is hopelessly congested with 115,000 tons!A tonnage of 115,000 may not sound an enormous figure, but the old small engines, which used to be the only ones on the railway and as far as I understand are still the only ones at one section, can only haul a train-load of 100 tons.
  There is another thing I would like to point out to His Majesty's Government. In your leases of land to settlers and planters both in East Africa and in Uganda restrictions are made and a condition is that a certain amount of the land has to be brought into cultivation. That is a restriction of which I do not complain at all; I only wish it had been adopted earlier. But I rather question whether the Government are justified in making these restrictions and conditions until they are in a position to carry the produce of the planter or settler to the market at a reasonable rate and at a reasonable speed.
  The noble Lord who will reply to me will probably say that neither the Treasury nor the taxpayer will provide sufficient money to develop the line as it ought to be developed; so the railway must be starved, and the taxpayer does not get a proper return on the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 already invested in the railway. I would like to point out two ways in which the money required—a considerable sum, probably £2,000,000 or £3,000,000—could be raised. The Government could raise the money by a loan on the railway

  595
  which might be guaranteed for ten years; or they might conversely follow the methods which have been carried out with great success by the Mexican Government, and in this case sell the railway to a company, retaining 51 per cent. of the Common Stock, which would give them control of the policy of the company. It is perfectly certain that until this congestion is removed by improving the port and the railway and reducing the rates the line will not be economically worked, the taxpayer will not get a proper return, and the country will not be properly developed. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the state of congestion on the Uganda Railway.—(Lord Hindlip.)
  *LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has introduced a question of very great importance and one which is of considerable interest to many members of your Lordships' House, and he has done so in a speech of which I make no complaint, although I think he has been unduly pessimistic about the actual situation, and has incidentally exaggerated some of the extra demands which we shall have to meet shortly. For instance, the Magadi railway will probably not be opened until July, 1914, and for the first year it is practically certain that there will not be exported more than 80,000 tons. Therefore that new demand, which will soon be a very important demand, I believe, upon our resources, will not actually come into being for another year or two.
  I admit the fact that there has been congestion. It is not denied in any way, and it is perfectly natural that those who are interested in East Africa, as the noble Lord has been for many years, should feel some anxiety as to the situation. I therefore hail the opportunity of being able to give the House some particulars in regard to it.
  I may point out, in confirmation of what the noble Lord said, not only how enormously the demand on our resources has increased during the last few years, but what a great part of that increase is actually within the last two years. The tonnage up and down the railway for the year 1906–7 was 52,784 tons; in 1910–11 it was 77,280 tons—an increase for the four years of about 50 per cent., or at a rate of geometrical increase of 10 per cent. per
  596
  annum. From 77,280 tons in 1910–11 the tonnage went up to 115,768 in 1911–12—an increase of almost 50 per cent. in one year after it had been increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that the receipts in money are £100,000 up for the year 1912–13; that shows an increase of 33 per cent. for the last twelve months, and an increase of 33 per cent. in money means, I think, an increase of more than 33 per cent. in tonnage.
  This is not the only Colony where we are faced with a sudden increased demand. The same situation has arisen in Nigeria, and it is especially marked in the demand for tropical products. It is our duty to relieve this congestion, but I really cannot feel gloomy about the cause even if I tried. The real reason of the anxiety is a satisfactory one—namely, the sudden expansion of the demand for the products of these Colonies, which in turn leads to a demand for imported goods to pay for them and a further demand for material in order to take in hand further extension and development. It does seem to me a matter for legitimate satisfaction and pride that this development is proceeding so rapidly in countries where only very recently over-seas trade was practically unknown.
  I turn to the steps which we have taken to meet the demand referred to by the noble Lord. First of all in regard to railway material, at the end of 1911–12 we had 67 locomotives which had 800,000 lbs. of tractive power, and our wagon stock represented 9,600 tons. In the first nine months of 1912–13 five locomotives were sent out with tractive power of 89,000 lbs., and 99 wagons with a capacity of 2,170 tons. During the last three months of the year 1912–13 we sent out six Mallet locomotives with tractive power of 144,000 lbs. There are now on order ten more Mallet locomotives with tractive power of 240,000 lbs., and 280 wagons with a capacity of 5,500 tons; and also five new tank engines have been ordered to replace the five old ones which are being transferred to the Port Bell-Kampala railway. Steps are now beina taken to order ten more engines of the tank type, which can be used if it is found impracticable to use Mallet engines beyond Nairobi. We have been a good deal hampered by the delay in the delivery of railway material. The demand throughout the world has been

  597
  enormous, and it seems as if none of the contractors have been able to keep to their promises; and that, of course, has added somewhat to our difficulties in regard to the matter. But for immediate purposes, for the demands that we see before us at the moment, our experts advise us that we have ordered sufficient engines and trucks. That being the case, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the present time, when prices for these materials are so extraordinarily high, is not a time when we ought to order in advance of our requirements.
  A point of no less importance in regard to the extra carrying power of this railway is that money has been found for eighteen new crossing stations, and when they have all been made there will be crossing stations at distances of nine miles. Four of these new crossing stations have been already completed, and when the whole number of eighteen are ready they will add enormously to the carrying capacity of this railway. The figures which the noble Lord mentioned of the effect of the changes that may be expected in the future represent a total of tonnage far below what can be carried by a single line provided there are adequate and sufficient crossing stations.
  I would next refer to the congestion at the terminus of the railway at Kilindini. To meet urgent immediate wants quick working cranes are being erected, and electric light is being provided for all-night working whenever it is necessary for loading and unloading steamers. That, again, will considerably add to what we can do in the port. As regards the provision of deep-water berths, Mr. Wilson, of the firm of Coode Matthews, the well known harbour experts, has been asked to examine the conditions on the spot on our behalf, and he is preparing a report which we expect will be in our hands within the next few weeks; and I can assure the noble Lord that the report as soon as it reaches us will receive our careful attention. As to the lake, one
  598
  cargo steamer is in process of construction; the plates are on, and it should be launched before the end of the year. The material for a second steamer should be arriving at the port about this time. Also a tug has been provided for Kavirondo Gulf and neighbourhood, and a railway is in process of construction from Port Bell to Kampala which will assist the traffic in cotton and other materials.
  It will be seen, I think, that we have taken energetic steps to meet immediate requirements and to provide for the expansion of the year that lies before us. At the same time everything points to further, and probably more rapid, development in the country. I do not think that we can, or that we ought to, rest content with what we have arranged to do up to the present time. It is our duty to look ahead, first of all of course for the sake of the Protectorate, but secondly also because the increase in the trade of this Protectorate will be of benefit to this country and to the whole Empire. I can assure the House that the whole position is fully realised by the Secretary of State, and that he is giving the question his most earnest consideration.
  *LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply. I would like to point out that although the Magadi railway possibly will not be opened for another year, there will be, as I understand, a large amount of traffic in the erection of works, and I would express the hope that there will be sufficient powerful engines to cope with the traffic between Nairobi and the lake, not only for the reasons I have stated, but because I think the rates ought to be lower, and they cannot be as long as there is insufficient engine power. I beg to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.