Sitting of 1 July 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered," put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I object.
Mr. SPEAKER: I waited for notice of objection, and the Bill is now ordered for Third Reading.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The Deputy-Chairman said the Bill would remain deferred till Monday, but when he said "Now," I objected.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): There is a misunderstanding in the matter. I was going to move to defer the Bill to Monday on the hon. and learned Member's objection, and I said "now" in the usual way. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he will have another opportunity on the Third Reading, and if he allows this stage to go, I shall endeavour to meet his convenience.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I had already objected as quickly as possible when the hon. Gentleman said "now."
Bill to be read the third time.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Gas Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 20) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF CHRISTCHURCH).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Christchurch, altering the Polling Districts in the Parliamentary Borough of Christchurch [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, dated 25th June, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Sanatorium Benefit) (Ireland) Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Public School) Order (Scotland) 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee to advise as to the Securities which should be approved under Section 56 (2) of The National Insurance Act, 1911, for the Investment of Funds of Approved Societies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Return ordered, "showing in respect of the year from the 13th day of January, 1913, to and including the 11th day of January, 1914, and also in respect of the period from the 16th day of December, 1911 (the date of the passing of the National Insurance Act, 1911), to the 12th day of January, 1913, (1) the receipts from stamps sold in connection with national health insurance; (2) the aggregate expenses paid by Parliament in connection with national health insurance (including fees, salaries, postage, printing, travelling, rent, rates and taxes, and all other outgoings in the nature of expenses); and (3) the sums voted by Parliament in respect of, or in any way connected with, the bentfits given under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance Act, 1913."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]
Return ordered, "showing, approximately:—

(a) The number of insured persons who receive each week (1) medical benefit, (2) sickness benefit, (3) maternity benefit, and (4) sanatorium benefit;

(b) The average weekly cost of each benefit;

(c) The aggregate cost of each benefit for the period ending the 11th day of January, 1914; and

(d) The number of insured persons who have received one or more of these benefits in the period ending the 11th day of January, 1914."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]

TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
Return ordered, "showing (1) the rates of duties, taxes, or imposts collected by Imperial officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1914; and (1) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such duties, taxes, or imposts, under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce after deducting these charges in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1914; and notes to show any changes in the taxes, duties, or imposts, consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget proposals of 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 295, of Session 1913)."—[Sir Darnel Goddard.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CONTRACTS).
Return ordered, "showing, in relation to the principal local authorities in England and Wales (i.e., county councils, town councils, urban district councils, Metropolitan borough councils, rural district councils, and boards of guardians), and to the provisions included in any contracts for the execution of works or the supply of materials entered into by those local authorities:—

(1) The number of local authorities that have adopted in such contracts clauses containing conditions as to
334
rates of wages and other matters affecting workpeople in employment, to the effect of those set out in the circular letter of the Local Government Board dated the 2nd day of September, 1911;

(2) The names of any local authorities that have adopted in such contracts clauses containing conditions of the above-mentioned subjects, but differing substantially from the clauses set out in the circular letter referred to, and the text of any such different clauses so adopted;

(3) The names of any local authorities that have not adopted any such clauses in such contracts entered into since the 31st day of December, 1911;

(4) In the case of local authorities coming within sub-divisions (1) and (2) of the Return; (a) whether the clauses have been adopted in all such contracts, and, if not, why not; (b) whether the clauses have extended to workpeople not engaged upon work performed under such contracts but employed by the contractor on other work;

(5)—(a) What complaints, if any, have been received by the local authorities since the 1st day of January, 1912, as to the non-observance of any such clauses adopted by them; and (b) what measures have been taken by them, either by means of inspection or otherwise, to secure the observance of such clauses." [Mr. Goldstone.]

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing, for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1914, (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balance of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 200, of Session 1913)."—[Mr. John O'Connor.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Davidson and Company, Sirocco Works, Belfast, are contractors to the Admiralty; if so, whether he is aware that adult male labour is employed by the firm at the rate of 16s. per week, and that a boy doing important work is in receipt of 8s. a week; whether he is aware that each labourer is called upon to sign a form declaring that he is not a member of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union or any similar unskilled labourers' society or union, and that so long as he is employed by the firm he will not join or become a member of any such unskilled labourers' society; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and secure strict conformity with the Fair-Wages Clause?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A complaint of the nature indicated in the question has been received. The matter is being investigated.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the result of the further inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause by the Portland Cement manufacturers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The further inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause has been completed, with the following result: At the Wickham Cement Works, Strood, it is considered that the Fair-Wages Clause is being adhered to. With regard to White's Works, Swanscombe, and Bevan's Works, Northfleet, thirty-four and thirty-one men, respectively, between the ages of twenty and fifty, were found to be receiving less than the minimum rate of 5d. per hour, plus 5 per cent. These numbers include partially-disabled men, and only twenty-four men at White's Works and nineteen men at Bevan's Works were considered cases in which the Fair-Wages Clause was not being strictly adhered to. The whole of these cases have been brought to the notice of the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, Limited.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty is aware that the firm of Morrison and Mason, who are carrying out a dock extension at Portsmouth for the Admiralty, insist upon the carpenters and other skilled workmen employed by them on this contract working 2½ hours per week more than the recognised hours of the district, and that they refuse to pay overtime rate for the extra hours worked; and whether he will instruct this firm to comply with the conditions that obtain in the district?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am in communication with the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee in regard to the matter. Further, as I shall be in Portsmouth myself this week-end, I propose to go into the matter on the spot.

    H.M.S. "Fox."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether there is any prize money due to the men who served in the last commission of His Majesty's ship "Fox;" if so, when this money will be distributed; will he say if medals are under consideration; and, if so, when they will be given?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of a grant in lieu of prize money is under consideration. With regard to the question of a medal, I can add nothing to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on Monday last to the effect that a medal is being struck, except to say that it will shortly be available for distribution.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is prepared to do in lieu of prize money?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes; the grants of prize money involve a considerable correspondence with two other Departments, and that is proceeding.

    GREENWICH AGE PENSION.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked for the number of men in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines who, on the 31st March, 1914, were eligible for a Greenwich age pension of 5d. a day and have not received it; will he give the number of men who, being eligible for the age pension, made application to the Admiralty during the year ended 31st March, 1914, but were, refused on the ground that the fund was insufficient; and will he give the same information as regards the additional age pension of 4d. a day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of men who made application during the year ended 31st March, 1914, and to whom age pensions were not awarded owing to insufficient funds, was about 300. No eligible men who have applied for the additional age pension of 4d. a day granted at sixty-five years of age have been refused. The number of men eligible on the 31st March last for age pensions of 5d. a day who had not been awarded such pensions was approximately 2,900. As I have pointed out before, all these men are in receipt of naval life pensions, in many cases of comparatively substantial amounts; and it may be taken that men over fifty-seven years of age whose applications for the Greenwich Hospital age pension have so far been unsuccessful, are either men in receipt of naval life pensions of comparatively substantial amount, or, if their pensions are small, have some other means of subsistence. The circumstances of all applicants for the Greenwich Hospital age pension are carefully considered when selecting men for the award.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases these men have wives and old women dependent upon them, and some of them have children; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of the Government endeavouring to obtain a Grant from the Naval Fund to help these men, and to prevent their having to go to the workhouse?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have done something in that direction, as the hon. Member knows.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, possibly unintentionally, he has conveyed to the House that men having pensions are not entitled to the extra 4d.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is nothing in my answer which conveyed that. I said that men who made application are in receipt of naval pensions; otherwise they would not be eligible.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman does not wish it to go out that the men who have pensions are thereby debarred from having the extra 4d., though they are entitled to it? Is it that they have not the money at the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On the contrary, if the men had not life pensions they would
    338
    not be eligible. What we do is to disburse the money to the oldest and most necessitous till it is gone.

    ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
    Mr. FALLEasked when the relief for the chief engine-room artificers and engine-room artificers now serving on the submarines at Hong Kong will be carried out; and can he give the length of service in submarines expected of these men on this station?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These chief petty officers were sent out in March, 1913. The nomal period of service is two years.

    GUNNERY SCHOOLS (SUPPLY OF AMMUNITION).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether orders have been given to make a reduction in the number of rounds of ammunition for officers and men which have up to now been fired during the various trainings in the gunnery schools; and, if so, will he state to the House how this is in the interests of economy or of efficiency?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Owing to the large numbers of men qualifying in the gunnery schools at the present time, some modification in the former scale of practices has been approved. This will not be detrimental to efficiency.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in regard to the 6-in. guns the seamen gunners have been reduced to half the supply, and will not their efficiency thereby be seriously affected?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have made a modification in the scale of practice, but it will not be detrimental to efficiency. Efficiency is not inconsistent with economy.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is it the fact that the firing allowance, taking it all round, has been reduced by one-half, and can that lead to efficiency?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know the exact proportion, but the modifications are not detrimental to efficiency.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD FIRE.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed to compensate the pensioners on duty in the semaphore tower, Portsmouth, at the time of the fire for loss of clothing and other articles; and can he say if all the riggers employed have received compensation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Compensation will be granted to the pensioners referred to. Payment of compensation in respect of all the claims received from riggers has already been authorised.

    Nigeria.
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to pass the Provincial Courts Ordinance, 1914, of Nigeria, in its present form; and when it will come into force?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Yes, Sir. Its enactment has been delayed solely in consequence of a technical question as to the form of enactment of the closely related Supreme Court Ordinance, which will I hope be settled shortly.
    Mr. POINTERasked whether by the Provincial Courts Ordinance, 1914, of Nigeria, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, presided over by qualified and experienced barristers, is restricted to the town of Lagos and a few small districts, and is to be replaced by Provincial Courts presided over by executive officers?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member's description of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the contemplated Nigerian Supreme Court Ordinance is hardly accurate I would refer him to Sections 22 and 24 of the draft Ordinance. With regard to the rest of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston of the 5th of March.
    Mr. POINTERasked whether, by the Provincial Courts Ordinance, 1914, of Nigeria, natives tried before the Provincial Courts are not to be allowed to employ counsel to conduct their cases, although the great majority of the natives are ignorant of the English language and the English law?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Counsel will not be allowed to appear before the Provincial Courts either for the prosecution or for the defence. The system has been in force for years in Northern Nigeria and, I am advised, works quite satisfactorily. It should be understood that the jurisdiction of these Courts is confined to the Protectorate and does not extend to the Colony of Nigeria, nor to the more important centres within the Protectorate, which are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court before which counsel may
    340
    appear. The presence of counsel in the Courts of the more remote and backward districts is attended my many disadvantages; and the system of supervision of the sentences of the Provincial Courts which is provided by the Ordinance will, in the opinion of all those best qualified to judge, amply safeguard the interests of the natives.
    Mr. PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has any information about the case of one Hamabini, of Nigeria, who was charged in June, 1913, with theft and sent by the resident to Naraguta, where, after some inquiry by the police officer, he was flogged and sent to gaol and, after being detained there for three weeks, was informed by the police officer's orderly that he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment with hard labour, although he had never appeared in the Resident's Court, and is now serving his sentence in the gaol at Zungeru or Lokoja; and what he intends to do about it; and (2) whether he has any information regarding the case of John Chukana, who was arrested in the Naraguta district of Nigeria and, after being detained three weeks, was ordered to go to work with the gang of prisoners, and informed that he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour, although he had never been tried, and is now serving his sentence either at Zungeru or Lokoja, in Nigeria; and what he intends to do about it?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information with regard to these alleged cases. If the hon. Member can give me any evidence that such cases occurred I will ask the Nigerian Government for a report upon them.

  INDIA.

    COMMISSAIRES (PENSIONS).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state what is being done about the question of higher pensions for commissaires of the Indian Departments; and whether those pensions are likely soon to be brought into line with recent increases in similar service at Home for corresponding work?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire on the 29th June.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the men at Home have £34 more pension than those men have, in addition to the fact that those men are away from Home?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member will give me notice I will inquire and give him detailed facts.

    HOME DRAFTS (BOUNTIES).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, owing to the lack of drafts from Home, the Indian Government is being compelled to offer bounties to men to extend their term of service in Inda; and whether he can say what the approximate cost of such bounties will be to the Indian Empire for the present financial year?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The War Office are offering bounties through the Government of India as a temporary expedient. The apportionment of the cost between the Home and Indian Governments is still under consideration, and I am unable at present to answer the last part of the question.

    FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has under contemplation any changes in the Finance Department whereby the head officials of that Department will not be liable, as heretofore, to removal at any moment by promotion to some other office where their specialised training and experience are less urgently required?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State is not aware that any such changes are in contemplation, except that it is hoped to make arrangements regarding the post of Comptroller and Auditor-General which will lead to greater continuity of tenure.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is the hon. Member aware of the waste which is involved in carefully training financial experts in the Financial Department and then immediately allowing them to be transferred to some other Department?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not think I am aware of it.

  FINANCE BILL.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the cost to the
    342
    Exchequer of the relief from Income Tax to persons in respect of the depreciation of machinery on the prime cost, instead of, as now, on the written-down value only?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I would point out to the hon. Member that if the basis on which the rate of allowance in respect of depreciation is to be calculated throughout is the prime cost, the percentage rate will be less than if this basis were the written-down value. In these circumstances, it does not appear that the depreciation allowance would cost more with one method than with the other.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of taking off some of the present taxes on food instead of reducing the Income Tax as proposed, in order to strike a balance between the established revenue and the expenditure for the year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can add nothing to the statements already made in this House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amount of the income for each of the last three years arising from securities, stocks, shares, and rents in places out of the United Kingdom which would have been liable to Income Tax in Clause 5 of the Finance Bill had been enacted in 1909?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Owing to the very fact that income accumulating abroad has hitherto been outside the scope of the Income Tax, it is only possible to give a roughly approximate estimate of the income which would have been brought into charge if Clause 5 had been operative in former years. As I stated, however, in the course of my Financial Statement, it is expected that the additional yield will ultimately amount to £1,000,000, which at 1s. 4d. in the £ represents the tax on £16,000,000, while the estimates on the basis of a rate of 1s. 3d. in the £, of £250,000 for 1914–15 and £470,000 for 1915–16, given in White Paper No. 293, represent tax on £4,000,000 and £7,500,000, respectively.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the fact that the cost of his concession to unearned incomes below £500 would be

    343
    £370,000 in a full year, he has in his revised Budget only allowed £52,000, or less than one-sixth of this sum, in respect of this item?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The figure of £370,000 was my estimate of the cost of the concession in a full year with a normal rate of 1s. 4d. in the £. With a normal rate of 1s. 3d. this figure becomes £245,000, as shown in White Paper No. 293. The comparatively small cost of the concession in 1914–15 is due to the fact that the relief must be given in the current year by way of repayment, and that taxpayers will thus not be in a position to claim it until the last quarter.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that not one-fifth of the people entitled to relief get it during the year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Most Income Tax is collected towards the end of the year, and cases of repayment are discharged in the first and second quarters of the following year.

    SCOTLAND (GRANTS).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no provision for temporary Grants to Scotland for the period from 1st April, 1915, to 30th September, 1915, is made in the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Bill, corresponding to the Grants to England and Wales for the same period?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Under the general law the financial year of local authorities in Scotland begins on 16th May, and the rates for the year are struck in the autumn. On the assumption that the valuation and rating proposals contemplated in the Finance Bill would be sufficiently forward to enable the rates to be struck at or about the usual time it was thought unnecessary to provide for temporary Grants for Scotland beyond the end of the financial year. The extension of the period in England is due, I understand, to the practice of half-yearly rating which obtains there. It may, however, be necessary to make provision for temporary Grants in Scotland for the whole of the next financial year, and the matter is now under consideration.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the omission of six months' Grants to Scotland is rather an important matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There will not be any omission.

    TEMPORARY GRANTS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in view of the fact that temporary Grants are only to be withdrawn for four months, the temporary Grants to England and Wales for the period from 1st April, 1915, to 30th September, 1915, under the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Bill still stands?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will those Grants for those six months be based on the total or the divided values?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That does not arise out of the question.

    TAXATION (YIELD).
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of Parliament not making provision for dividing the rateable value of land or of such division not being completed by the 30th September, 1915, he is, under the increased scheme of taxation in the Finance Bill, raising a sum of approximately £8,000,000, for which there is no definite scheme of allocation; and whether there is any precedent for such a course?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can add nothing to the explanations of the financial proposals of the Government which have already been given.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is levying additional taxation in advance for objects and on conditions which have not been approved by Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope that they will be approved by Parliament before next year.

    SITE VALUES (RATING).
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation recommended the rating of site values as a tentative experiment, and stated that it should not be embarked on until the new basis of valuation had been completed,

    345
    and an opportunity afforded of considering the effect of such an experiment in the light of the new valuation itself?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member will find the answer to this question by reference to the Report which he quotes.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the clerks to the old age pensions sub-committees in county Kilkenny have not as yet received payment for the quarter ended the 31st March last; if so, whether he will state the cause of such delay in making the payments of their fees; and whether he can see his way to having payments promptly made to those clerks who have not been in arrear with their work, or who have not been inaccurate in their returns, for the future?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The accounts for the fees payable to clerks of pension sub-committees in county Kilkenny were received by the Board of Customs and Excise on the 4th May, and orders for payment were issued to the clerk of the county committee for distribution on the 27th May. There was no unnecessary delay so far as the Board of Customs and Excise are concerned.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SCOTTISH RURAL WORKERS' FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Mid-Atholl branch of the Scottish Rural Workers' Friendly Society recently met at Pitlochry, and that a statement was made at the meeting that, with a membership of 324, there were only ten ordinary sickness claims, averaging about one week each, during the last six months, also three maternity benefit claims, while the total payments made amounted only to about £10; whether he is aware that the contributions made by employers and employés during this period amounted to over £400; and whether he can give the actuarial calculations upon which he estimated that the contributors would receive 9d. for 4d., in view of the fact that the employés' contributions alone amounted, in the above-mentioned period, to over £200?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I do not know whether these figures are correct, but I may point out that the cost of medical and sanatorium benefit appears to be omitted from the Noble Lord's calculation, and that the favourable experience of the insured persons referred to should result in their obtaining additional benefits on a surplus being shown on valuation.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give actuarial figures to show that the people to whom I refer are getting 9d. for 4d.?
    Mr. BENN: Those people having had an exceptionally favourable sickness experience are very fortunate.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If they are fortunate, why have they to pay for it?
    Mr. BENN: The Noble Lord surely understands that he cannot base a general estimate on the experience of 323 members of the Scottish Rural Workers' Society!
    Mr. FALCONER: May I ask whether it is the fact, with regard to this Scottish Rural Workers' Society, that the sickness experience all over Scotland of the members of this society has been exceptionally favourable, and, if that is so, whether they will receive the full benefit of that by way of additional benefits?
    Mr. BENN: Of course what my hon. Friend says is perfectly correct. If their experience is favourable, there will be so much more money when the valuation takes place.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (DISPUTES).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an insured person who is dissatisfied with the action of his approved society in refusing or suspending benefit has no other remedy than applying whatever procedure the rules of the society may provide for the settlement of disputes with members, and that these rules differ widely in the different societies and in some cases cannot be brought into operation until the insured person has made a deposit quite beyond the means of poor persons, especially women workers; and, if so, will he take steps to provide some simple, cheap, and uniform procedure for the settlement of such cases by impartial tribunals?
    Mr. BENN: Section 67 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, provides that all disputes arising under the Act between an approved society and an insured member shall be decided in accordance with the procedure provided by the rules of the society. The procedure differs considerably in the different types of societies, and in some cases a deposit is required. The Commissioners have no power to provide for the settlement of disputes as the Noble Lord suggests, without reference to the societies' own tribunals, nor to compel societies to change their present procedure.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that general smiths in Glasgow are being offered work by the Labour Exchanges there at Inverness át 26s. a week, which is a much lower rate than prevails in Glasgow, and on the workmen's refusal to go such a distance and accept such a wage, for family and other reasons, they are being deprived of their unemployment benefit under Part II. of the Insurance Act; and, if so, will he say whether this action has the approval of his Department?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I have made enquiries in this matter and am unable to find any case in which unemployment benefit has been refused in the circumstances referred to. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will have further enquiry made.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the urgent need for making immediate additional provisions for the administration expenses of the smaller burgh and county insurance committees, the length of time the matter has now been under consideration, and the anxiety felt by many insurance committees as to their position, he is now prepared to make some statement as to the additional amounts to be paid over to these committees to enable them to meet their expenditure?
    Mr. BENN: I fear that I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Midlothian, on the 25th May.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Can the hon. Gentleman say when a statement is likely to be made?
    Mr. BENN: No. The matter is being considered, but I cannot say on what date a decision will be come to.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Are these gentlemen also getting ninepence for fourpence?
    Mr. BENN: I am afraid that I cannot detect any meaning in the Noble Lord's question.

    EXCESSIVE SICKNESS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked how many meetings of the Departmental Committee on Excessive Sickness have been held; and how many of them have taken place since the committee ceased taking evidence?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is informed that the Committee referred to have held sixty meetings and that no meeting has been held since the evidence was concluded.

    Miss DEBORAH HART (TRANSFER).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Deborah Hart, of Belgrave Road, Abbey Road, N.W., whose transfer from one doctor to another has taken three months to complete; whether he will make inquiries into the matter and ascertain how the delay occurred; whether he is aware that information was given to the chief insurance commissioner on the 3rd June that the formalities of transferring the insured person, with the requisite consents, from the list of the one doctor to the other, had been completed and that the case was finally and satisfactorily disposed of, whereas a letter was received by the hon. Member for Devonport from the clerk of the insurance committee for the county of London on the 26th June stating that the transfer of this insured person had only that day been completed; can he explain how this incorrect information came to be supplied, and what was the reason of the delay?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend has made inquiry into this case and he is informed that a full statement in regard

    349
    to it has been furnished to the hon. Member by the London Insurance Committee. I may add that pending the completion of the transfer the insured person was able to obtain, and in fact obtained, the treatment which she required.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his statement in writing.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the letter from the Local Government Board to the Kirkintilloch town council, in reference to sanatorium treatment of persons in that town suffering from tuberculosis; does he admit the right of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners to repudiate responsibility for treatment of insured persons who have become a source of danger to those around them; if so, what right have they to accept contributions of such persons without fulfilment of promises made, or, if in terms of Section 16 (3) of the National Insurance Act the Commissioners had decided that the cases of insured persons who were refused treatment were unsuitable cases, will he see that reasons be given for such decision in each case to the local authority concerned?
    Mr. W. BENN: Under Section 16 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, the duty of considering applications for sanatorium benefit rests not upon the Insurance Commissioners, but upon the insurance, committee in each area. I understand that in the case referred to the insurance committee have already been in communication with the local authority concerned.

    Land Taxation.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing rate of shrinkage of the arable area of Great Britain and the desirability of promoting greater home production of our people's food, he will consider the desirability, in the national interest, of differentiating between the taxation, whether national or local, imposed upon arable land and grass land, respectively?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some reason for not adopting the suggestion, and does he not think it is a very convincing proposition?

    Revenue Bill.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any progress will be made in the next year with the valuation under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, seeing that the Valuation Department, under the provisions of the Revenue Bill, will be engaged in adjusting full site values so as to make those values a basis for separately rating values attributable to houses, buildings, and other improvements on the one hand and land without such buildings and improvements on the other hand?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The duties laid upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will remain unaffected by the provisions to which the hon. Member refers. The service of provisional valuations in connection with the original valuation will be practically completed by the 31st March, 1915.

    Spirits and Beer Duties (Estimated Yield).
    Mr. GRETTONasked what is the revised estimated yield of the duties on spirits, ale, beer, etc., respectively, during the present financial year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The figures are as follows:—

    £

    Spirits

    23,850,000

    Beer

    13,850,000

    Steamship Lines (Employment of Lascars).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the proportion of white deck-hands and stewards in proportion to lascars carried on the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company's and Orient Company's passenger ships, respectively; and if he has information showing that this proportion of white hands is greater or less than in the case of other British and foreign passenger steamship lines?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the Orient Company do not employ

    351
    lascars. As regards the vessels of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, there appears to be no fixed proportion of white deck-hands and stewards to lascars, which varies according to the nature of the employment of each vessel. As regards the last part of the Noble Lord's question, I regret that the Board of Trade have not the figures available which would enable me to give the information desired. A detailed comparison with other British passenger steamships would involve an enormous amount of labour, while I doubt if it would be possible to secure a comparison with foreign passenger steamships.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to furnish me with figures in the case of the Norddeutscher-Lloyd, of Bremen, and other lines going to India?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I shall have to make inquiries.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it important, in the matter of the employment of white seamen, to ascertain what the true position is on English and German steamship lines, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not dispute the importance of the matter.

    Labour Exchanges (Administration).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails at Glasgow and in the Clyde district at the manner in which the Labour Exchange officials select men who have registered at a Labour Exchange for employment, in many instances men who have been unemployed for a considerable time having been passed over in favour of men who have been unemployed for a comparatively short period; if he is aware that there is a growing feeling of mistrust in the Labour Exchange officials and their methods; and whether, with the object of removing this feeling, he will give instructions that, so far as possible, men must be sent to jobs in the order their names appear on the unemployed register?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: A complaint of the nature referred to in the question has been brought to my notice, but I have no reason to believe that any widespread feeling exists as is suggested by my hon. Friend. It is the guiding principle in the
    352
    conduct of Labour Exchanges that vacancies should so far as possible be notified to workmen best suited to fill them. I am afraid that any general instruction that men must be sent to jobs in the order their names appear on the unemployed register would result in sending unsuitable workmen to employers, and thus impair the utility of the Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the complaint really is that the officials are not qualified?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think the very nature of the complaint shows that it is exaggerated. In a particular case there might be mismanagement, and in that case I should be glad to receive information from the hon. Member. But to suggest that Labour Exchange officials are in general unqualified is to exaggerate.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Are the names first in order on the register considered first in order for filling up jobs which are available?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No. I have explained that for filling up jobs the names are selected in respect of their special suitability.

    Postal Service (Further Inquiry).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether additional wages granted to postal servants as the result of the proposed inquiry into outstanding grievances will be met by Supplementary Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government must await the results of the inquiry.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked what will be the terms of reference to the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the outstanding grievances of postal servants, following on the Report of the Holt Committee of Inquiry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position to announce the terms of reference within a few days.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND MEN (MARRIED OFF THE STRENGTH).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether he can yet state which of the recommendations of the Report of Mrs. Tennant to the War Office upon the conditions of non-com-

    353
    missioned officers and men married off the strength will be adopted by the Government; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the 11th ultimo, steps are being taken to obtain fuller knowledge of the conditions prevailing in the different commands and the views of the Government of India on this question, of which the Government fully realise the importance. There will be no avoidable delay.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some date when the recommendations will be adopted by the Government. They have been under consideration since last December.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give an exact date, but I can assure the hon. Member that we are fully alive to the urgency and importance of the matter.

    ARMY COUNCIL.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of giving a seat on the Army Council to the Inspector-General of the Forces, who has, by reason of his duties, greater opportunities of knowing the needs of the Army than the existing members, of the council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would be desirable to alter the constitution of the Council by adding the Inspector-General of the Forces to it. The occupants of the post have always been in close touch with the Army Council.

    RECRUITING.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether recruiting for the Regular Forces is still unsatisfactory; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This important question is receiving the close attention of the Government. Measures have been taken to stimulate recruiting by bringing the advantages of Army life into greater publicity, and the Adjutant-General and General Officers Commanding-in-Chief are carefully overhauling the machinery of recruiting. I am glad to say that since 1st January, 1914, the number of recruits taken weekly has risen consistently, and it is a justifiable anticipation that the total taken this year will be well up to the re-
    354
    quirements of normal conditions, and better than that of the previous four years. The subject will be more fully dealt with when an opportunity arises in debate.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is the standard the same?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, as far as I am aware.

    SMALL ARM AMMUNITION.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked what were the reductions in small arm ammunition and general stores mentioned in the Army Estimates of this year; and whether any further reductions are contemplated?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The reductions in the sums provided in Estimates for the current year under these heads are reductions in the expenditure necessary to maintain the reserves of stores and to supply the troops on the authorised scales. No reductions in such scales are involved, and I am not aware that any are contemplated in future.
    Sir S. SCOTT: Have the reserves been reduced?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his personal assurance that the Mowatt reserve is being fully maintained?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I can.

    BARRACK WARDENS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the terms of employment of barrack wardens whose rate of pay was fixed in 1902, in view of the increase in the cost of living and the more responsible duties now entrusted to them?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): This question is already under consideration.

    NEW RIFLE.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the defects noticed in the new Army rifle have now been overcome; whether the rifle has been, or is about to be, issued to any further units with a view to testing its practical efficiency; and whether he himself has been able to visit the experimental range at the Royal Small Arms

    355
    Factory and form his own judgment by use of the rifle as to the improvements that have been effected?
    Mr. BAKER: It is hoped that the defects referred to have been overcome, but further trials will be carried out very shortly. My right hon. Friend is advised that a visit to the experimental range at the Royal Small Arms Factory would provide inadequate opportunities for forming a first-hand judgment on the technical points involved.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Does the answer of the hon. Gentleman mean also that the ammunition which is fired with the rifle is effective with that rifle?
    Mr. BAKER: Perhaps the Noble Lord will give me notice of that.
    Mr. KING: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of further knowledge, does he mean that he has himself fired with this rifle?

    HOME AND INDIAN FORCES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether this country has now in India and the Oversea Dominions a force of 117,000 fully mobilised men?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the full statements made on this matter in Debate on the 10th and 11th March by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston. The position has not changed.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Does the Army Council agree with the answer just given to me by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, yes, Sir.

    NATIONAL RESERVE FORCE.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the strength of the Regular Forces is much below that for which provision for pay and maintenance has been made in this year's Estimates, he will say whether he proposes to relinquish the amount so saved to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to obtain the sanction of the House to devote the same to the strengthening and equipping of the National Reserve Force?
    Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on the 23rd ultimo.

    BULFORD CAMP.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the Government to give an advance of wages to the labourers of the ammunition column at Bulford camp, seeing that these men now only receive £1 per week wages, are allowed no holiday, and get no wage when off work through sickness; whether these men are obliged to live from seven to ten miles away from the place where they work because the rent of houses near runs from 7s. to 10s. per week; and whether their case will be taken into immediate and favourable consideration?
    Mr. BATHURST: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I would like to know whether the camp meant is Bulwell or Bulford, the latter of which is in my Constituency which the hon. Member is now seeking to represent?
    Mr. BAKER: I understand that my hon. Friend refers to Bulford. I may inform him that the labourers there will shortly receive an increase of wages, when the date for the overriding minimum is fixed. They are entitled to eight public holidays with pay annually. When sick they receive benefit under the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. BATHURST: Is it not the fact that the housing difficulty in this district is entirely owing to the negligence of the Government in not providing accommodation for their own employés?
    Mr. BAKER: It is quite true that there is some slight difficulty but the hon. Member exaggerates, and the number of these men is comparatively few.
    Mr. BATHURST: The number of houses is, too.

    LABOURERS (MINIMUM WAGE).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War from what date the Army Council intend to fulfill his promise that a minimum wage of 22s. a week shall be extended to labourers in the Army Ordnance Department and to barrack labourers?
    Mr. BAKER: The date is not yet fixed, but it will be the same as that applied to the Post Office.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it will be dated back to some prior date?
    Mr. BAKER: I did not say what the date was; the matter will have to be arranged between the War Office and the Postmaster-General.

    Returning Officers' Expenses.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked whether it is the intention of the Government to make provision for the payment of returning officers' expenses by the State before the next General Election; and, if so, by what means and when?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government do not propose to make any such provision during the present Session. I cannot indicate what may be the intentions of the Government with regard to next Session.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the Prime Minister aware that about eight years ago a Resolution in favour of this being done at once was passed unanimously by this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

    Scottish Estimates.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister when the Scottish Estimates will be taken, and how many days he proposes to give to them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say at present; but I have no doubt ample time will be arranged through the usual channels.

    Civil Service (Royal Commission).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service have refused permission to Sir Charles Bruce, G.C.M.G., to give evidence on the question of the security of tenure for Civil servants on the ground that the evidence proffered would not come within the scope of the Commission's inquiry; and, if so, whether, in view of the experience possessed by Sir Charles Bruce of the conditions obtaining in the Civil Service, he will consider the desirability of extending the scope of the inquiry of the Commission?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that on 7th May last Sir Charles Bruce requested permission to tender certain evidence to the Royal Commission, after the publica-
    358
    tion of the fourth Report of the Commission, and that permission was refused on the ground that the evidence in question did not appear to have any direct bearing upon the questions then under consideration. I see no ground for extending the scope of the Comission's inquiry.
    Mr. HALL: If the Government are desirous of obtaining all the information which is to the advantage of the Civil Service, will not the right hon. Gentleman follow the suggestion contained in the last part of the question and enlarge the scope of the inquiry?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no relevancy between the two parts of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. HALL: Are the Government desirous of hushing up all these matters, by giving such replies as that which the right hon. Gentleman has just given?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, I am not desirous of hushing up anything. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that there is any desire to hush up anything in refusing to enlarge the scope of the inquiry.
    Mr. HALL: May I ask the Prime Minister, seeing I can get no satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he will consider, in view of the statements made in the House of Commons yesterday, the desirability of increasing the scope of the inquiry as suggested in the last part of my question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that Sir Charles Bruce made his recommendation to the Civil Service Commission after their inquiry upon that branch of the Civil Service had been completed and their Report issued, and therefore it was impossible to deal with it?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, that is so.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Arising out of the last answer of the right hon. Gentleman, does he intend the House to believe that the correspondence to which his attention has been called is only the correspondence that has been placed before him?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, Sir; for many years I have been familiar with correspondence with Sir Charles Bruce—
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On this subject?
    Mr. McKENNA: On this subject I do not think the hon. Gentleman is as familiar with the whole of the facts of the case as I am.

    Ancient Monuments Board (Scotland).
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will give his reason for refusing to accede to the request to add a Scottish Member of Parliament to the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland?
    Mr. W. BENN: The reason is that the Board is expert in character.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say by imputation that no Scottish Member has sufficient expert knowledge of ancient monuments to justify his appointment to the Board?
    Mr. BENN: No, I do not venture to say that. What I say is that there are two Departments—one to advise, the other to exercise control. The one is the Board, the other Parliament.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Does the hon. Gentleman debar Members of Parliament from being on either of the Boards?
    Mr. BENN: No; but in their capacity as Members of Parliament they have no place on them.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Will my hon. Friend explain the expert capacity of the hon. Member who represents English opinion on the English Board and is a Member of this House?
    Mr. BENN: There is a Member of this House on the English Board, but he is there in his capacity of representative of the Board of Education, which controls certain museums.

    Scottish Office of Works (Architects' Allowance).
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked why a special allowance of £100 is to be provided for future occupants of the post of principal architect for the Scottish Office of Works?
    Mr. BENN: The allowance is given in respect of special responsibility attaching to the post, as stated by the Holmes Committee in paragraph 21 of their Report.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: What are the special responsibilities apart from the special
    360
    responsibilities that the present occupant has?
    Mr. BENN: They are identical.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: If they are identical, why is not this allowance being given now?
    Mr. BENN: The special responsibilities are identical, the general responsibilities are not.

    Nationalisation of Railways.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the resolutions passed at the recent railway workers' conference in favour of the nationalisation of railways; if any information has been collected by the Government to show the financial obligations which such a course would involve; and if it is proposed to introduce legislation to deal with the matter in the near future?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first branch of the question is in the affirmative. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, a Royal Commission is inquiring into the whole question of the relations between the railway companies and the community, and the Government think it advisable to wait for the Report of this Commission before coming to any decision in the matter.

    Elementary Education (Scotland).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether fees are paid by scholars in any of the elementary schools in Scotland; if so, in how many schools; by how many children in the aggregate; and to what aggregate amount are fees paid?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the table on page 93 of the Statistical Return published by the Scotch Education Department, a copy of which I am sending him.

    Kilmuir Estates, Island of Skye (Scotland).
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what is the amount of arrears of rent upon the Kilmuir estates in the island of Skye, and what is the annual rental?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Owing to the fact that the hon. Baronet's question only appeared upon the Order Paper yesterday, I have not yet been able to obtain the

    361
    information for which he asks. If he will put down his question for Thursday in next week, I shall hope to be able to give him the full figures.

  POST OFFICE.

    His MAJESTY'S MAILS (PASSENGER SHIPS).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Postmaster-General if any guarantee is exacted by his Department that passenger ships carrying His Majesty's mails should employ a standard proportion of white deck-hands and stewards to lascars?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The answer is in the negative.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman by his answer to say that his Department are not concerned as to whether or not there are a proper proportion of white deck hands and stewards on the ships carrying His Majesty's mail; and has his attention been drawn to the fact that this is a matter that has been considered by the various Postmasters-General of the Dominions?
    Captain NORTON: I did not make that statement; I said, "The answer to the question on the Paper is in the negative."
    Earl WINTERTON: Is there any standard?

    PERTH POST OFFICE.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the staff of the Perth post office was officially informed in February, 1914, that the units of work in that office were 675.84; whether this figure is correct; whether it includes the work of Perth as a central forwarding office and telephone business; and, if so, whether he will consider the classification of Perth as a II. B office?
    Captain NORTON: I am inquiring into the circumstances at Perth, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    KILMARNOCK POST OFFICE.
    Mr. GLADSTONEasked the Postmaster-General whether he can furnish the latest returns of the units of work of the Kilmarnock post office; on what conditions its classification is based; and when this classification was last revised?
    Captain NORTON: The present classification of Kilmarnock was fixed at the general revision which took effect as from
    362
    the 1st January, 1908, and was reviewed in connection with the recommendations of the recent Select Committee. I am inquiring whether the volume of work is now sufficient to warrant a higher classification for the indoor force, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Motor Car Acts.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Marlborough Street Police Court on Saturday a person was convicted of being drunk in charge of an automobile and driving to the danger of the public, and that he was fined £10, his licence taken away, and he was imprisoned for one day; whether he is aware that for exactly the same offence several taxi-cab and other professional drivers have been given terms of imprisonment with hard labour; and whether, in view of the disparity of those sentences, he will bring in legislation to impose imprisonment without the option of a fine for driving automobiles when drunk?
    Mr. McKENNA: The facts of the case are as stated in the question. Diversity in the punishments awarded for offences of this kind may, I think, be explained by the great diversity in the circumstances, and I do not think it would be right to deprive magistrates of the discretion they at present possess in this respect; but I think it is probable that when Parliament reviews the Motor Car Acts it will be disposed to increase the severity of the punishment for reckless driving.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that in the case of taxi-cab drivers may not only suffer imprisonment but probably lose their employment for the future; whilst in cases like that in the question, and as the right hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen reported in the Press, those concerned only suffer imprisonment?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the distinction that the Noble Lord has referred to is a very serious one.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to address a memorandum to the magistrates on this matter; if so, will he do it?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should be glad to send to the Noble Lord a copy of the

    363
    various memoranda on the subject which I have already addressed to the magistrates.

    Metropolitan Street Traffic.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the Metropolitan Carriage Act of 1869 was framed to deal with horse cars and horse omnibuses, he proposes to amend that Act so as to bring it up to the present-day conditions of motor traffic?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Act of 1869 was brought up to date by the London Cab and Street Carriage Act of 1907. The Commissioner of Police informs me that no difficulty is experienced by the police in the application of the Public Carriage Acts to motor traffic.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take the necessary steps to extend the present limits of six miles from Charing Cross of the Metropolitan Street Act, 1867, to the whole of the Metropolitan Police area, so as to enable the police to stop the practice of motor omnibuses picking up and setting down passengers on tram lines?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is much to commend the extension of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, to the whole of the Metropolitan Police district and the question has been under consideration. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that Section 14 of the Act, to which I presume he refers, only empowers the Commissioner of Police to prohibit the taking up and setting down of passengers by stage carriages at any particular place, and I am advised that there would be no power under the Section to apply such a probibitation either to tram lines in general or to tram lines in the whole of a particular street.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Home Office to endeavour to get an extension of the limit to the whole of the Metropolitan area, which was recommended by the Chief Commissioner to the Board of Trade?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, as will be seen from the answer I have given.
    Mr. BOOTH: Before coming to any decision, will my right hon. Friend consider first the convenience of the public?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; that will never be lost sight of.

    Workmen's Compensation Act (Inquiry).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Committee to inquire into the administration and operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act will be set up?
    Mr. McKENNA: In view of the pressure of work at this period of the Session, I do not think anything would be gained by attempting to set up the Committee now; but I hope to do so in time to allow it to begin work early in the autumn.

    Criminal Charges and Publicity (Loftus Justices).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of the Loftus justices on Friday last, when they proceeded from the Court House to the residence of a bank manager to hear a charge of attempting to commit suicide against the bank manager; whether he is aware that the Press representatives were refused admission by the magistrates' clerk on the ground that the magistrates were only holding a preliminary investigation to see whether a Court should be held; whether he is aware that the magistrates heard his criminal charge and decided to deal with the case summarily, thereby constituting themselves a Court for the hearing of a case; and whether, in view of the decision of the House of Lords, and more recently of judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal, that criminal charges shall be held in public, steps will be taken by legislation or otherwise to prevent the hearing of criminal charges as, on this occasion, with the Press and public excluded, seeing that this was not merely a preliminary investigation but an actual hearing of a criminal charge?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am making inquiry as to the facts, and until I know them I cannot answer the question. There is an important distinction between the preliminary inquiry into a charge of an indictable offence and the actual trial of an offender.

    Coal Mines (Stowage and Packing).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the successful manner in which the system of hydraulic stowage or packing of the waste has been carried into operation at the Dalzell and Broomside Colliery at Motherwell; whether he is aware that an experiment of the same kind is also being carried out in Fife; and whether, having regard to the success of such experiments, he will give instructions to the inspectors of mines in Scotland to report as to how far such a system could be successfully adopted in other coal mines in Scotland?
    Mr. McKENNA: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Departmental Committee on Spontaneous Combustion in Coal Mines is investigating the question of hydraulic stowage of wastes from the point of view of safety of working where the coal is liable to heat, and I understand that the Committee intend to take evidence as to the results of the experiments made with this system in certain collieries in Scotland. There seems no occasion, therefore, to direct any separate inquiry by the inspectors?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of getting his inspectors to report upon the experiments which have been made in the past few months, in order that we may have the information before us?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Committee will, no doubt, take evidence upon the point.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The Committee will not have before them the facts relating to these experiments.
    Mr. McKENNA: If they ask for them, they will, I have no doubt.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his inspectors' attention to these experiments?
    Mr. McKENNA: The inspectors are aware of them. I think the matter may be safely left in the hands of the Committee.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been dircted to the need for making better provision for the distribution and storage of explosives in mines; and whether, having
    366
    regard to the dual responsibility which exists under the present system, the absence of proper means of carrying into and out of the mines the explosives required, and the dangers arising therefrom, he will consider as to making the mine-owners responsible for the storage and distribution of explosives in future, so as to secure their safe carriage while in transit, their methodical distribution to the miners at the working face, and their safe return, when unused, to the store?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no evidence before me pointing to the need of altering the present system in the direction suggested in the question. The practice of men carrying their own explosives below ground is of long standing and does not appear to be attended with special danger, and no change in regard to it was recommended by the Royal Commission.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had representations made to him on behalf of certain bodies of miners on this question?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; doubtless I have, but the subject-matter came before the Royal Commission and it did not make any recommendation.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the representations made to him on behalf of this body recently on this very important question concerning the safety of the miners themselves?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes, I should not fail to do that.

    Trade Dispute, Burton-on-Trent.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the prelude to the arrest of Mr. Vale Rawlings, the Burton strike leader, was that he was in conversation with twelve or fifteen working women on strike arranging the terms to be put before the employers by a deputation which the employers had agreed to meet; whether, whilst so engaged, Inspector Oulton charged him with obstruction and ordered him to move on; whether any charge of obstruction had been made against the accused by anyone or whether there was any disorder of any kind in connection with the proceedings; and whether, in those circumstances, he will reconsider his decision not to interfere with the duration of the sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: It appears from the reports I have received that Rawlings and a company of twelve or fifteen girls were obstructing the street and were asked by the police to move on. The police did not know what the object of their meeting was; but Rawlings had been warned as to obstruction on the previous day. There was no disorder until Rawlings assaulted the inspector, and no charge of obstruction was added to the charge of assault. I am very sorry that the circumstances brought to my knowledge would not justify interference with the sentence. A further sentence of seven days was passed upon Rawlings for assaulting one of the employés. I have now received a petition signed by the prosecutrix in that case. I have decided with the consent of the magistrates that the sentences may properly be treated as concurrent, and I have accordingly advised the remission of the second sentence.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Does the sentence expire to-night?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the prisoner will be discharged to-morrow morning.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received any information as to an attempted attack by a body of Irish National Volunteers on the residence of Captain Moore, near Londonderry, when the situation was so serious as to make it necessary for Colonel Johnstone, a resident magistrate, to take a body of police to Molenan to disperse the volunteers; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. Member has been misinformed. The police report that on Sunday afternoon, the 21st June, a number of the Irish Volunteers assembled, and proceeded to their usual drill field near Captain Moore's residence. The resident magistrate was not present, and no arrests were made. No disorder of any sort occurred, nor was any attack made or attempted on the residence of Captain Moore.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply he has given
    368
    is diametrically opposed to the facts already stated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, it is not diametrically opposed, but is exactly in accordance with the police reports.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary if he has received any representations on behalf of the provisional committee of the National Volunteers that the arms proclamation may be withdrawn; and what steps are proposed to be taken in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Motor Omnibuses (Damage to Roads).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the rise in the rates in London and the country caused by the destruction of the roads by motor omnibus services and other heavy motor vehicles; and whether he is considering any steps by which the owners of such vehicles shall be required to make some contribution towards the cost of repairing exceptional damage to the roads?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is proposed to ask Parliament to appoint a Joint Select Committee to consider the general question of contributions to road expenses by the owners of motor and trolley omnibus services. The question of requiring the owners of heavy motor vehicles to pay a larger contribution than now to the cost of roads is receiving the attention of the Treasury.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Joint Select Committee will be set up?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope it may be possible for it to commence its investigations soon.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these vehicles are used by persons of moderate means, and will he be very careful not to allow anything to result in an increase in fares?
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tramways of London are contributing £250,000 per annum towards the relief of the local rates, and whether it is fair that the omnibus companies should be let off without paying an extra penny cost?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is a matter for debate.
    Mr. HALL: Did not a Committee already sit in connection with that matter; and may I ask when is it likely their Report will be brought to the notice of the House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think there has been a Committee this year.
    HON. MEMBERS: Last year.

    Infant Mortality and Still-Births.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the President of the Local Government Board the rates of infant mortality and of still-births for the United Kingdom in 1913?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The rate of infant mortality in the United Kingdom in 1913 was 108 deaths under one year of age per 1,000 births registered. The proportion of still-births cannot be stated as these are not registrable, and information in regard to them is obtainable only for areas which have adopted the Notification of Births Act, 1907. These areas do not in all cases tabulate the information they obtain, but it may be stated that during 1912 the still-births notified under this Act in the county of London numbered 2,593. This number amounts to 2.4 per cent. of the total births notified, and to 0.57 per 1,000 of the estimated population at the middle of the year.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement of the Lord Chancellor in regard to this question the other day?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think my Noble Friend was referring to still-births; he was referring to ante-Natal subjects.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Birkenhead Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
(Group K),
Mr. H. J. Craig reported from the Committee on Group K of Private 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.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A) [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 22) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill [Lords],
Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords],
Hightown Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  STONY STRATFORD CHARITIES BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain Charities in the parishes of Stony Stratford East and Stony Stratford West, constituting and known as the town of Stony Stratford, in the county of Buckingham." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 300.]
  BAPTIST CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain Charities." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 301.]
  BURNHAM-ON-CROUCH CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Protestant Congregational Dissenters' Chapel in the parish of Burnham-on-Crouch, in the county of Essex." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 302.]
  HOLLIGRAVE CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application of the Charity of Margaret Holligrave, under the management of the Clothworkers' Company of the City of London." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 303.]

  BRADFORD (INFIRMARY STREET) BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of

  383
  the clear proceeds of sale of the Bethel Baptist Chapel and School in Infirmary Street, in the city of Bradford." Presented by Mr. CHARLES ALLEN; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 304.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I desire, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the amendment of the Law relating to Income Tax (including Supertax), Death Duties, and the National Debt."
  I think I can explain this Instruction in a few words—
  Mr. BUTCHER: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I want to call your attention to the terms of the Instruction, which proposes to deal with the National Debt Clause, and I submit that part of the Instruction is out of order. I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having drawn your attention to this point, but the honest truth is that it was only brought to my attention two or three minutes ago. The practice on the subject is laid down in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, page 482 of the 1906 edition, in which he says:—
  "An Instruction is also out of order if it proposes to enable the Committee on the Bill to introduce Amendments for which a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means is required."
  On a former occasion, you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that if this Bill is to meet the law as to the National Debt, it ought to be founded on or preceded by a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means. I have looked at the ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel, on which that observation of Sir Erskine May is founded, and it seems to be a case on all fours with this. On the 24th of May, 1894, there was a case in which there were two Instructions upon the Paper before the Finance Bill of that year was considered in Committee. One of them stood in the name
  384
  of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and the other in the name of Mr. Grant Lawson. The second Instruction was:—
  "On Order for Committee on Finance Bill being read to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill to enable existing settlements of property affected by the Bill to be modified."
  On that occasion, Mr. Speaker said, as regards these two Instructions on the Paper,
  "they are not in order inasmuch as they are not covered by any Resolution adopted by the House in Committee of Ways and Means. The first Instruction raises a charge on property, and that can only be done by Resolution sanctioned in Committee of Ways and Means. The second, dealing with settlements, is not, I think, within the purview of the Bill, and has not been covered by any previous Resolution sanctioned by Committee of Ways and Means."
  The last observation applies, as regards both its branches, to the present Instruction so far as it concerns the National Debt. In the first instance, as you, Mr. Speaker, have already ruled, this proposal to amend the law as to the National Debt is not within the purview of the Bill. It was not dealt with by any of those Resolutions upon which the Bill was ordered to be brought in, and this alteration of the law is not covered by any previous Resolution sanctioned in Committee of Ways and Means. I submit that the Instruction, so far as it deals with the amendment of the law relating to the National Debt, is out of order, and cannot be put in order by subsequently passing a Resolution dealing with an amendment of the law.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman had given me an opportunity of considering the precedents to which he refers, because they are very technical and difficult matters, and it is almost impossible, on the spur of the moment, to give a judgment upon a number of cases which I have not referred to previously. I think the Instruction is in order for this general reason. Clauses dealing with the National Debt have always found a place in the Finance Bill, and not in any other Bill. They have always been there. As I pointed out, the mistake occurred from the Finance Bill having been brought in on the first six Resolutions, and not on the seventh, also which dealt with the National Debt. In the ordinary course of things, the Finance Bill would have been brought in on all those Resolutions. I was asked whether I ought not to rule that the whole Finance Bill should be withdrawn, and I disposed of that point on the last occasion. It seems to me that an Instruction is the

  385
  proper way of giving the House an opportunity of discussing the National Debt Clause, which always found a place in the Finance Bill, and obviously that is its proper place. I think an Instruction gives the House the opportunity it ought to have, and always has had on former occasions, and it seems to me that it is regular.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If this method of procedure by Instruction is sanctioned will it be competent for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer who desires authorisation to insert a Clause in the Bill dealing with the National Debt to proceed by means of an Instruction? Will it not follow if that procedure is now authorised that it will be open to any Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future to omit from the Resolutions on which his Finance Bill is founded any one of the Resolutions obtained in Committee of Ways and Means, which have habitually been considered necessary, and which he may find it convenient to dispense with provided he subsequently gets authorisation from the Committee to insert such a Clause by means of an Instruction? In other words, will it not be possible for future Chancellors of the Exchequer to substitute Procedure by Instruction for the hitherto unbroken practice of Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is quite clear that the Resolutions must be passed first. This must be done if it is desired to impose another charge which has not been considered. That has happened before, and it has been necessary to take the charge in a Resolution of that kind after the Bill has been in Committee some time.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but in that case the House has always gone into Committee of Ways and Means again, and we have discussed the matter in Committee of Ways and Means, and have had not only that opportunity, but an opportunity of discussing it on Report. I do not think we have ever dealt with a case of that kind by an Instruction.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There could not be an Instruction to insert a Clause which made a charge. There must first be the Resolution in Committee permitting the charge. This National Debt Clause does not impose any fresh charge.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Are we to understand then that this Instruction is only in
  386
  order because the House has already arrived at the Resolution necessary for its insertion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not say that. I say it is necessary in order to correct an error, and I will put it in that way. No doubt an error was made in not bringing in the Finance Bill on the seven Resolutions. In order to put the Finance Bill upon a strict and proper basis, I suggested that the Instruction, more or less in its present form, should be moved to regularise the proceedings.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Might I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Instruction, as read, might very well authorise the Committee to impose a charge? There is nothing in the Instruction as worded which prevents the Committee from voting a charge, and, therefore, from that point of view, I submit that it is out of order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not so. It is necessary to have a Resolution to impose a charge. The Amendments referred to are to reduce the charge, and not to increase it.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Instruction I have moved gives power to make provision for the amendment of the law relating to Income Tax (including Super-tax), Death Duties, and the National Debt. Without this Instruction the relief to the taxpayer contained in the Finance Bill, and any other proposal for the relief of the taxpayers which any hon. Member may wish the Committee to adopt, would be out of order. For this reason, it does seem to me that there will be no controversy as to the advisability of that part of the Instruction, because it will enable the Committee to discuss, not only new charges upon the taxpayer, but new relief of the taxpayer. With regard to that part of it which deals with the National Debt, as you have just said, it is a matter of practice and precedent always to deal with questions of the National Debt in the Finance Bill, and, if there were no Clause in the Finance Bill dealing with the National Debt, the permanent annual charge would remain at £24,500,000, a sum at which it was fixed in the Finance Bill of 1910. This part of the Finance Bill imposes no new charge upon the taxpayers, but, on the contrary, reduces the charge in respect of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Income Tax (including Super-tax), Death Duties," and to insert instead thereof the words "Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise)."
  This is the first step in the course of procedure by which the right hon. Gentleman announced that he proposes to regularise his original errors in connection with his Budget. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Instruction, as such, although I should like to join in the caveat which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Chamberlain) entered the other evening against the later proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Revenue Bill and the proposal to transfer the Local Government Clause from the Finance Bill to the Revenue Bill. I am quite content, so far as that Clause is concerned, to wait and see whether those later stages of the Revenue Bill are ever reached. I must confess that I am profoundly sceptical upon the matter. The object of this Instruction, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has explained, is to enable the Committee on the Finance Bill to deal with two matters; firstly, the National Debt, and, secondly, the general amendment of the law so far as certain specific taxes, the Income Tax, the Super-tax and the Death Duties, are concerned. I venture to submit that, so far as the Income Tax is concerned, the Instruction is really unnecessary. I merely point that out, because last year we obtained a decision from you that, without any Instruction at all; we had power to move Clauses relating to the general amendment of the law so far as the Income Tax is concerned, that being one of the taxes which is referred to in the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to extend the scope of this Instruction, and to empower the Committee to deal with the general amendment of the law, not merely so far as these particular taxes, the Income Tax, the Super-tax and the Death Duties, are concerned, but also to allow the Committee to deal with any grievance which any Member on behalf of his constituents may bring before it, and which affects them so far as the general taxation is concerned.
  Before I deal with the main arguments on the Amendment, I propose to ask the indulgence of the House to say a few words on the first opportunity I have in reply to the attack which the right hon.
  388
  Gentleman made upon myself the other day, and to which I had no opportunity on that occasion of replying. The right hon. Gentleman reproved me for my temerity in having ventured to claim Mr. Speaker's decision as to the regularity of this proceeding, and he referred to my action as rummaging in the dustbin of ancient precedents. I think that the right hon. Gentleman by now is beginning to recognise that was rather an unfortunate phrase. In the first place, it is not very complimentary to the illustrious predecessors who have occupied the Chair before yourself, because the only logical inference to be drawn from that is that anyone who wishes to find the words of wisdom which have fallen from those illustrious predecessors will have to look for them in the dustbin. I hardly suppose that the right hon. Gentleman could have applied that to yourself, because he would scarcely have referred to your decisions as ancient. In addition, to that, I do think that it is a matter for regret that a Minister, occupying the high position of the right hon. Gentleman, should refer to the whole law and custom of Parliament, that whole fabric which has broadened down from precedent to precedent, and which has formed the model for the Parliaments within His Majesty's Dominions, and has been the envy and admiration of other countries, as if it were garbiage to be found in the dustbin. As the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to administer to me a rebuke, I do not think that he can take it amiss if I venture to offer to him a suggestion. If only in future he will pay a little more attention to precedents and procedure, there probably will be less of his own financial or other proposals finding their way to the same receptacle to which he has relegated the whole law and custom of Parliament.
  The right hon. Gentleman has also made one of those direct pecuniary references to which we are becoming so familiar from him in connection with my constituents. One day it is, "If a constituency elects one man, they will get £15,000." The variant on this occasion was, "If they elect me, it will cost them £17,000." I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the communications which I have received from my Constituents have not been at all in the category that might have been anticipated from his statement, and that his reputation for accuracy at St. Pancras will remain at a discount until

  389
  he gives them the name of the ten fortunate landowners who own the whole of the annual value of St. Pancras. I venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had started out to devise a statement as far remote from the fact as he could possibly think of he could not have found one more remote than that the change in procedure which has been forced upon him is responsible for the dropping of the temporary Grants to the local authorities, because, so far from that being the fact, he has more time both for temporary and permanent Grants the moment the Clauses dealing with those Grants have been disembarrassed from the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, which apply to them as long as they form an integral part of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is raising matters more or less irrelevant; he is not entitled to go into all these considerations in connection with this Instruction.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: I will at once pass to the main point in connection with the Instruction. I base my Amendment to it upon this: I say the Committee ought to be in a position to consider grievances arising in connection with any tax before Ministers are granted the taxes they require for the particular year. I base it upon an old maxim which I find somewhere in my dustbin, "That grievances should come before Supply." What is the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman? He says, "Give me my taxes, give me my Income Tax, my Death Duties, and my Super-tax. I will allow you to discuss any grievances which you may have in connection with these particular taxes, but, so far as any other grievances are concerned, you must postpone them until the Revenue Bill." If we were to assent to that, what would be the position? The moment Ministers had got their taxes, they would allow us to bring up our grievances, but only accordingly as it suited their convenience or otherwise, and at a later stage, when and if the Revenue Bill is ever reached, the right hon. Gentleman might be referring to the exigencies of Parliamentary time, or using some other polite phrase, may put off any representative who wished on behalf of his constituents to bring a crying and urgent grievance before Parliament. I submit to the right hon. Gentle-
  390
  man that those whom he staves off by referring them to the opportunity afforded by the Revenue Bill have not been encouraged by his procedure last year. Last Session I raised the same objection to the new procedure of separating the Revenue Bill from the Finance Bill, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said, "Wait for the Revenue Bill, and then you will be able to raise your grievances with respect to the Land Value Duties and Customs and Excise." There were many Amendments which had actually been framed for that purpose, but when it came to the point of the Revenue Bill being proceeded with the right hon. Gentleman dropped it.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I submit that this is not relevant to the discussion. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] The right of raising points of Order is not quite limited to hon. Members opposite. I want to ask whether it is relevant to consider the question of the postponement of the Revenue Bill of last year on an Instruction of this nature.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that what happened on the Revenue Bill last year is very relevant, but what the hon. and learned Member said up to that uoint was relevant. He wishes to insert certain words in the Instruction because he says they will give the House an opportunity of moving a series of Amendments dealing with all sorts of questions. That is why he desires to insert these words, and he is entitled to show why he ought, in his opinion, to have the opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. CASSEL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman had really appreciated my point. It was that if we are not allowed to move these Amendments on the Finance Bill we may never get a chance of doing so on the Revenue Bill. I only called attention to the fate of the Revenue Bill last year for the purpose of emphasising that point and showing that the same thing might happen again to the Revenue Bill this year. The result would be this. Last year no Member of this House had an opportunity of moving a single Amendment with the object of remedying a single grievance in connection with any other tax except the Income Tax, and unless we ensure such an opportunity on the Finance Bill this year, we may not be able again to raise any of these Amendments, because the Revenue

  391
  Bill of this year may very easily share the fate of the Revenue Bill of last year. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when he dropped the Revenue Bill last year, he gave an undertaking to introduce it early in this Session. He introduced it on the 14th May and it was not printed until the 16th June. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman calls that introducing it early, but the fate of the Revenue Bill last year, and the way in which he has kept his promises in regard to it this year, made me feel anxious as to whether we should really get the opportunity we desire at a later stage, and, therefore, I am moving this Instruction to make certain that I shall get that opportunity before Ministers are granted the taxes which they want for the purpose of making good the Supply of the year.
  I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he accepts my Amendment he will get the benefit of this Instruction, because, in that case, he can remove the Clauses of the Revenue Bill to the Finance Bill with the exception of Clause 1 which I think is a mere excrescence and can be dealt with in another way. That is the course which is open to the right hon. Gentleman. He may urge that he is prevented taking this course by the question of time; that he is bound to have the Finance Bill through by the 5th August under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. But whose fault is it that we have got a Provisional Collection of Taxes Act? It was only because the right hon. Gentleman did not get his Finance Bill through until December, that we had to have such an Act. I only wanted to point out that if want of time is his plea, it is his own fault and nobody else's. He always leaves his Finance Bills until the very last moment. In fact he only missed by three-quarters of an hour, making the whole Income Tax collected since the 5th April illegal. Had the Second Reading been taken after twelve instead of at a quarter past eleven—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That really is not relevant to the Instruction. The hon. Member cannot now review the whole situation.
  Mr. CASSEL: My object in referring to it was to point out that if the plea of want of time is urged by the right hon. Gentleman, that the difficulty is one of his own creation. We had a precedent set last year. His Finance Act only got the Royal
  392
  Assent on the 15th August, and if he tells us that time is the only reason why he cannot accept this Amendment, I reply to him that the Finance Act of last year only received the Royal Assent on the 15th August. Of course, it was quite illegal, but then it was a modern precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, I wish to move this Amendment as a protest against the procedure of separating the Revenue Bill from the Finance Bill. I submit it is right and proper that the whole field of taxation should now be reviewed, to see if any particular grievances on the part of the people who pay the taxes can be removed.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I beg to second the Amendment. The House realises, of course, that this Instruction is only necessitated in order to get the Government out of a difficulty into which they have put themselves, and the question we have to decide is whether we shall let them get out of that difficulty in the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes or whether we shall help them out by another form which, while it gets them out of their difficulty, will enable the House to discuss not merely the subjects which the Chancellor of the Exchequer chooses to allow it to discuss, but also other grievances arising out of other parts of the Budget or financial proposals of the Government which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not wish us now to discuss, and the Debate upon which he desires to postpone until the Revenue Bill is under consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will very likely say that an opportunity will be given later on for discussing all those grievances which it would be open to us to discuss if the Amendment were passed. But I think the scepticism of my hon. and learned Friend as to the opportunity likely to be given of really discussing the Revenue Bill is well founded. He was quite right in calling the attention of the House to the fate of the Bill of last year, because the House in Committee passed five or six new Clauses, each one of which dealt with a specific grievance of the taxpayer, and then simply because another Clause—Clause 11, I think it was—was not agreed by the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the whole Revenue Bill, at the same time promising that very early in this Session he would reintroduce a Bill containing these Clauses designed to remove the griev-

  393
  ances of the taxpayer, either in exactly the same form or in a similar form. But as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out he has delayed the introduction of that Bill so long that now there is no little risk that it may never even be discussed, and all those grievances which could be dealt with on the Revenue Bill, and many others, will be shut out if the Instruction takes the form which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, although they would be open for discussion if this Amendment to the Instruction were carried.
  For example, if the Amendment were passed, we might consider the grievances of payers of Licence Duty. There is one grievance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said produced the grossest inequity. It was the case in which a man now might have to pay as Licence Duty a greater sum than he receives in rent for the licensed premises which he happens to own. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to that, said it was a gross iniquity, and yet under his very limited Instruction to the Committee it will be impossible to remove one of the grossest iniquities now being suffered by the taxpayer. With regard to Customs, certain hon. Gentlemen opposite last year insisted that we ought to get rid of the protective Sugar Duty, because they looked upon it as contrary to Free Trade principles. I do not agree with them in that, but I should like to say that the principle underlying that duty is extended to other industries, which will be shut out from discussing their grievances if the Instruction is allowed to go through in its present form, although that if my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is accepted, they may be enabled to discuss these questions and move any Amendment they may think necessary in the law of the country. In either case the Government will be got out of their difficulties whether the Instruction passes in the original form, or whether it passes with the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend added. I ask the House to accept the Amendment because it does give to the taxpayer the right which is his, or was his until this Chancellor of the Exchequer came into power, to have his grievances considered before further taxation is placed upon him.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment. The hon. and
  394
  learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) rather suggested that he did not want the words which are inserted in our Instruction about the Income Tax. I am not sure whether he said anything about the Death Duties. I should like to know whether he wishes the Income Tax to remain in. These words were inserted, not because the Government wanted them, but to enable the Opposition, or anybody who has an Amendment to move, to do so. The only words we are concerned in are those with regard to the National Debt. The other words are moved merely in order to enable the Committee to move any Amendments they think fit, with a view to removing any grievance in respect of the taxes which are dealt with in the Budget. The hon. and learned Gentleman travelled rather wide from the issue he has raised, and I must say that for a Gentleman who is anxious about the Rules of Order, I have never seen one who was so disorderly in the course of the short speech he delivered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, twice he was called to order. Here is a speech he has taken a whole week to prepare. Considering the labour which has been spent upon it, I think it might have been better, at any rate, with all his anxiety, with all this looking up of precedents, for a speech he has taken a week to prepare, he cannot keep inside his own dustbin. The only thing that seems to be relevant, so far as I can see, to every discussion raised by the Opposition is a personal attack upon myself. That seems to be relevant to every Debate they raise. What is the complaint of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It is that I pointed this out: That whereas the Opposition had been pressing the Government, and pressing me specially to make provision year after year for the relief of rates which were pressing upon local authorities, and also to make provision—a cash provision—for housing, the moment I did so, instead of assisting me, they began to seek out precedents in order to trip me up, and did nothing to help me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Is that an improper observation to make? I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I know he will give me a candid answer, and I will take it from him—I ask him whether, if a proposal had been made by his own side—I have seen Chancellors of the Exchequer on his own side who have introduced Budgets which were out of order, and the very first Budget introduced after I came into the House by the greatest Chancellor of the

  395
  Exchequer I have seen on that side, Mr. Goschen, was out of order—he would have taken the same trouble to hunt up precedents in order to make it impossible for his own Chancellor of the Exchequer to get on with a proposal of which he was in favour in the main? If he says he would, I accept his answer.
  Mr. CASSEL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, to wait and see. In the next place, I think it would be a most useful service to the country if I can succeed in turning out this Government.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly what I am pointing out. Their concern was not about money for the ratepayers; their concern was not about money for building houses, but their concern was about turning the Government out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Chair!"] I am answering an attack made upon me by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is a Daniel come to judgment, and I am very much obliged to him. I knew he would give a very fair answer. Let me come to the other point which the hon. and learned Member raised. I am not sure whether you, Mr. Speaker, did not indicate to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was travelling a little beyond the issue when he wanted to inquire who was to blame for the Gibson Bowles Act. I am afraid I cannot pursue that. Then that was the third time the hon. and learned Member was out of order. Under his instruction I am getting a little more careful. Let me go on to something where he was in order. He stated that these taxes will come to an end on the 5th August. That is not what I am advised. However, that is a legal question which I do not feel competent to discuss with a lawyer. I am advised that it is not the 5th of August, but the 5th of September which is the date. It is a legal matter which I do not wish to pursue. In regard to the point whether you ought to have a general Resolution that will enable the Committee to travel far and wide and raise every issue and amend any law which deals with revenue, let me put this: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, "Whose fault is it?" I put exactly the same question here. What did we find with regard to all our Budgets? That pages of the Amendment Paper were covered with Amendments raising every conceivable issue on every Budget,
  396
  Budgets which were not taxing Budgets, and Budgets, which were practically a renewal of the charge for the Tea Duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am coming to the reason why not. It is not for me to suggest, and I would not suggest it if I had not been in Opposition myself, that it was done particularly to consume time. It was becoming a very effective weapon. I remember the Budgets of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) in regard to which I put down Amendments of this kind, and I do not mind saying it was very often done with a view to the consumption of Parliamentary time, which we thought was very badly spent by the Government of the day, and we thought we could better occupy it with topics that we suggested for their consideration. That is what every Opposition does.
  The result has been that we have had to plough every year through these pages of Amendments. If they were all discussed it would be impossible to discuss any Bill except the Finance Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir Thomas Whittaker) pointed out, there is the additional difficulty that every Liberal Government has to put its Bills through three times in order to get them through the House of Lords and on to the Statute Book, with the result that there is an additional difficulty in finding time to plough through every year the same Amendments. We believe it to be incumbent upon us to consider the position of the Finance Bill proper, and the Revenue Bill which enables the House of Commons to review now and again those questions which are raised for the decision of Parliament. That is the course we propose to pursue this year. The hon. and learned Gentlemen is very confident that he will never see the Revenue Bill again. I will repeat what he said, "Let him wait and see." If he does see it, and does get his Amendments discussed, I am sure he will get up and say that he is very sorry for the unjust and unfair charges he has brought against His Majesty's Government. I will wait and see whether that apology comes. The hon. and learned Gentleman has complained in reference to an Amendment in which he himself was anxious to bring forward with regard to married women and Income Tax. It is true that I promised the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity at an early date of dealing with that. I do not propose that he should wait for

  397
  the Revenue Bill to do that. I have already told him that I propose that a Resolution should be put down by the Government with a view to enabling him to bring forward his Amendment in any form he desires. That will be on the Finance Bill, so that his fate is not mixed up with that of the Revenue Bill. I am sure he will be very glad to hear that. That will be an opportunity for him to deal with that issue. That is the answer to his point. I think I have dealt with all the points which are relevant to his Amendment to which he was anxious to get an answer. If there is any further point to which he desires an answer, perhaps he will interrupt me now.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House will feel with me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a bad loser.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not lost yet.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has lost half his Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, no, I have not! Are you sure of that?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I am quite sure, because Mr. Speaker has already informed the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot proceed with it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Mr. Speaker has never informed me that I cannot proceed with the second half of my Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Do you think you are going to do it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, and I have already stated the procedure by which we mean to proceed with it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has got to admit, for he knows it, that he has got to take it out of this Bill, where it is out of order. That is the whole point raised by my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Cassel). The Chancellor of the Exchequer's extraordinary ill-temper and ill-taste in dealing with my hon. and learned Friend's speech is due to the fact that in this matter my hon. and learned Friend was right and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong and has lost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer arrogates to himself an authority and power which have not been claimed by any of his predecessors. He repeated to-day the charges which he
  398
  made the other night against my hon. and learned Friend. What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's claim in clear language? It is that he is to be above all rules, custom and practice, and that the rules and obligations which, have lain upon and been borne by his predecessors, and to which they have conformed, in order that the business of the House might be managed in an orderly and regular manner, are not to be binding on him, and that it is high treason against the people if anyone ventures to ask that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should comply with the conditions which have been enforced against all his predecessors. I desire in a few words to draw the attention of the House to the real issue raised by the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend and the alternative which he offers to this Instruction. I think I can put what that issue is in almost a sentence. The House is offered an opportunity of reconsidering the results of action which it has already taken. It is offered by my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment an opportunity, before fresh precedents are made, of reverting to the old financial procedure which prevailed until the passage of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill. In that year, for the first time, the Finance Bill was divided into two, and the opportunity which until that year had always been given to the House on the Finance Bill to review any grievance connected with taxation was, for the first time, taken away from it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking a moment ago, a little forgot the excuse which he gave when that was done. He then said, after the passage of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill, that it was the passage of that Bill which necessitated the breaking of the Finance Bill up into two.
  At any rate, up to that time, and until the Finance Bill was divided into two, the House of Commons has always had an opportunity, which no Government could take away from it, of considering, in connection with the imposition of the taxes for the year, any grievance which hon. Members thought required redress, either in connection with these annual taxes or with any other taxes which were imposed, without limit of time and did not require to be annually renewed. When the Finance Bill was divided into two it followed that the House forwent its great opportunity for the redress of fiscal grievances, or, at any rate, postponed it until the

  399
  second part of the Finance Bill was reached. But I do not think the House understood, when it took that course, how serious was the inroad it was making upon its own rights and its own power to control the Ministry. As long as the opportunity of the House to secure the redress of grievances occurred upon the Finance Bill, which was necessary to the Government, the House could be quite certain that it would have its opportunity, and until the advent of the right hon. Gentleman it had always had its opportunity in good time and at a propitious period of the Session. But when once the Finance Bill is divided into two and the opportunity for redress of grievances is postponed to the second part, the House has no guarantee, when it votes the taxes, that that second part will ever be proceeded with, that, if it is proceeded with, it will be at a time when proper attention can be given to it, or that if it is taken up again it will even then be carried through to a finish; and before the House rejects the Amendment I think it is pertinent to recall that the only other alternative they will have to discuss, the question which he is now seeking to obtain leave to discuss upon that Bill, will be upon the Revenue Bill, and that we may be confronted again with the same situation this year with which we were confronted last year.
  The right hon. Gentleman had then in the Revenue Bill proposed certain concessions which were much desired on this side of the House. The great majority of the House desired to see that Bill passed, and to have these concessions embodied into law. There can, I think, be no dispute about the facts. But by that period of the Session it was possible for a little group of Members to hold up the whole Revenue Bill because they disapproved of some particular Clause, and to produce a state of things in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite frankly told us that though he was anxious to fulfil the hopes that he had raised, and to carry through the concessions which he had promised, he was not able to do it at that period of the Session. There is only one way in which the House can secure control for itself. It is by giving itself the opportunity to have these questions discussed on the taxing Finance Bill of the year. That is what my hon. and learned Friend proposes to do, and if the House, with the experience which it has had, deliberately refuses to take that course, and determines again to
  400
  repeat the process of last year, it will have signed away its power of control over taxation. Do not let any Member of the House think this is merely a question of the convenience of a particular Government at this moment. It is a question whether the House in the future, whatever Government is in power, be it chosen from Gentlemen who now sit on that side or from Gentlemen who now sit on this side, or elsewhere, is going to have its old opportunities of discussion and redress of grievances, or whether reaffirming now, with knowledge of the case and of the results, the step which it allowed to be taken a few years ago, it is going permanently to deprive itself of the opportunity to redress grievances, as the condition of imposing taxation, and to make certain that in every Session, and at a reasonable period of every Session, we shall have an opportunity for such discussion.
  Mr. LEIF JONESI hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that if he wishes to lecture my right hon. Friend on the state of his temper he will do well to keep better control of his own. The fact is that the whole Opposition are very hard to please in this matter of the Finance Bill. I must say that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) strikes me as not only ungrateful, but as positively quarrelsome. Nothing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do in this matter is right. My right hon. Friend introduces his Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman, I will not say rummaging in the dustbins of ancient precedent, because that phrase offends him, though I do not know why it should. A very distingunished dustman is at present playing on the boards of a London theatre—a debonair dustman. But whether it is out of his own store of knowledge or by rummaging, he discovered that the Finance Bill was out of order. I do not complain of that, and I do not know that anyone on this side has complained. But when Mr. Speaker ruled in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman solely on the point of procedure—I understand that was the point of Order—Mr. Speaker pointed out a method by which the irregularity might be overcome. My right hon. Friend follows exactly the method pointed out by Mr. Speaker, and again the hon. and learned Gentleman is in a quarrelsome state of mind. Again he raises points of Order and again he moves Amendments.
  Mr. CASSEL: I have not raised a point of Order to-day.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman himself raised no point of Order to-day. His Friends raised the point of Order. The truth is that the procedure followed to-day tends to show no great desire to save time, about which hon. Members opposite have expressed so much concern. It also shows no desire to get on with the Revenue Bill, for which they are so anxious, and it shows no desire for the discussion of those Grants for local government, which they so ardently desire. In regard to this very Motion and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, so far as I can understand it, the real purpose of my right hon. Friend in putting Income Tax into the Resolution at all is to make it perfectly certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman shall be able to move his Amendment in regard to the incomes of husband and wife. I believe there is considerable doubt whether that Amendment would be in order on the Finance Bill if my right hon. Friend left Income Tax out of his Instruction to-day.
  Mr. CASSEL: I moved a similar Amendment last year without any Instruction.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to take that risk I understand my right hon. Friend is ready to leave Income Tax out of the Resolution, if that were the only point. I think it shows signs of ingratitude on the hon. and leargned Gentleman's part that he should object to Income Tax being in this Instruction.
  Mr. CASSEL: I am not objecting. I say that wider words ought to be used.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The effect of the Amendment is to leave out these words. Again, with regard to the Revenue Bill and the local Grants, I am anxious that we should get these Grants in aid of local government, and I am as anxious as the hon. and learned Gentleman that there should be no further postponement of the Revenue Bill. I regard it as absolutely certain that the Revenue Bill cannot again be dropped this year, whatever demands may be necessary on the time of the House, and that is why I appeal to hon. Members who care about the Revenue Bill that there should be no unnecessary waste of the time of the House, which is now very strictly limited. This is the
  402
  1st of July, and if we are to get full time to discuss the Revenue Bill, the sooner we get rid of all unnecessary discussion and deal with what must be dealt with the better. I am very glad my right hon. Friend proposes to put the Clauses out of the Finance Bill into the Revenue Bill, because it will make it certain that we shall discuss at one and the same time the local Grants and the conditions on which they shall be made. But I, no more than the hon. and learned Gentleman, should acquiesce in the postponement of those Clauses and put them in the Revenue Bill if I had any doubt in my own mind that we shall very soon get on with the Revenue Bill. For that reason, and desiring to get these local Grants, and to get to the discussion of the Revenue Bill, I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to exercise his ingenuity any more on these points of Order and Amendments, but to let us get on with the real business of the Session.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I should be the last to contest any ruling of the Chair on a question of Order, but at the same time, when your ruling arises on an Amendment or Instruction proposed by the Government, it is legitimate, without in any sense encountering the ruling of the Chair, to discuss the principle that is involved, and I rise solely with a view to securing, if I can, the continuance of technical freedom in regard to the discussion of the Finance Bill. As I understand, the Chair was put in this difficulty by the original phrasing of the Budget—that the Chair was confronted with the fact that there had not been a Resolution in Ways and Means upon one particular matter which the Budget dealt with. Now I gather that in consequence of the Chair being put in that position and confronted with what was undoubtedly a very unusual circumstance, the Government have inferred that as a measure of escape from that difficulty an Instruction can be devised which will rid them of the complications in which they were placed. I have endeavoured to give close attention to the ruling with the view of finding what logic there was for it. Speaking for myself—it may be from the blankest ignorance—I cannot see how this Instruction is in any sense necessary, or how it in any sense advances the position which the Government desire to take. I am the more constrained to say that because I entirely failed to follow the reasoning of the Secretary to the Treasury in moving

  403
  the Instruction. It is the Secretary to the Treasury to whom we have to look for guidance as to what the effect of this Instruction is.
  I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement has laid down a far more serious consequence from the adoption of this Instruction. He argued that in the old days, when he was in Opposition, it used to be the constant practice of the Opposition of the day to occupy time by discussing Amendments on the Finance Bill. Granted. How will that be prevented by the invention of the Revenue Bill? I strongly protest against the contention put forward that because the Government choose to divide their proposals into two that in any way limits or fetters Members of this House. The position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken up is this: "Hitherto we have found long pages of Amendments dealing with questions of finance, and, forsooth, in order to prevent that difficulty in the future, we will endeavour to confine the House by a rigid Instruction from moving those Amendments on the Finance Bill." I do not think that will be the effect. I deny that the fact that the Government choose to bring in a Revenue Bill will fetter or restrict Members as to the moving of Amendments on the Finance Bill, and if we allowed this Instruction to pass without protest the House would be assenting to the position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, "I will stave off Committees or discussions about various extraneous matters, because I will bring in a Revenue Bill under which they will be in order." I say that they will be in order on both Bills, and it will require a ruling from the Chair to convince me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can restrict Debate as he proposes, and I hope that the House will, until the Chair rules to the contrary, have the same latitude and liberty in dealing with the Finance Bill as before, even if the Government brought in fifty Revenue Bills. It is only by way of illustration that I say the Government in the very first year in which they attempted to confine the House in this matter gave the best proof of the unsoundness of their procedure by dropping a Revenue Bill with regard to which we were told we would have every opportunity for discussion.
  I think it is right that we should now find out what this Instruction means. So for, at least as I am concerned, I believe
  404
  the Instruction is wholly unnecessary. I believe that it does not confer any power on any Member of the House in relation to the moving of any Amendment which he could not move without the Instruction. This is a matter on which we are entitled to claim some guidance. What does the Instruction do? I think this is a matter the importance of which cannot be exaggerated from the point of view of private Members, because if the Instruction be necessary, we can never move Amendments again in Committee unless there is an Instruction. Next year we may be told "You cannot move that Amendment because you have no Instruction. You, in 1914, conceded to the Government the right to move an Instruction. It was by virtue of that Instruction, you were allowed then by the Chairman to move the Amendments you did move." That is a fatal principle for the House to adopt. Nobody can carry an Instruction except by the will of the majority, and is it to depend on that majority whether Amendments can be moved or not? I do not intend to say one word except upon the technical question. I am dealing with that question alone, and I hope I am dealing with it as much in the interest of the Opposition as of the Government. I am dealing with it also from the point of view of independent Members of this House. Let me point out what the Instruction does, and let me respectfully express the opinion, which I shall hold, until I am corrected by authority, that there is no authority in this matter except the Chair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is no more an authority in this matter than I am. It is for the Chair to lay down the power which he assumes to wield. The Instruction says:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the amendment of the Law relating to Income Tax (including Super-tax), Death Duties, and the National Debt."
  I respectfully say that we can do that without an Instruction, and the very best proof that we can do so has just been given by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). He was twitted by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leif Jones) as to the position he would be in as regards the question of Income Tax payable by husband and wife. The hon. Member adopted the view of the Government that the hon. and learned

  405
  Member for West St. Pancras could not move an Amendment on that question wihout some Instruction having been passed, whereas the hon. and learned Member replied, "I did that last year, and there was no Instruction." But where will we be next year if there is any Instruction passed now? Surely when you turn to Part II. of the Bill you will find there that Income Tax for the year 1914–15 is dealt with, and you will also find that Super-tax is dealt with. Am I to be told that I could not move an amendment in Committee to these Clauses in any respect I please except for this Instruction? Of course, I could. The title of the Bill which, after all, is the main matter is this:—
  "A Bill to continue the Duty of Customs on Tea, to reimpose Income Tax and Super-tax, with amendments and modifications, and to amend the law relating to Death Duties, the National Debt, and Grants for local purposes, and for purposes incidental thereto."
  Therefore, my right to move Amendments is contained in the title of the Bill itself. I pass to the next part of the Instruction which refers to Death Duties and the National Debt. I must say that, as Mr. Speaker's ruling had reference to the National Debt, the endeavour by this new kind of dog policy to restrict the House might become an extraordinarily inconvenient matter if it were allowed to pass without observation. Therefore, I take the Death Duties which are dealt with in Part III. of the Bill. The subjects to which the Clauses refer are: Amended rates of Estate Duty; abolition of Settlement Estate Duty and of relief in respect of settled property; relief in respect of quick succession where property consists of land or a business; and protection of purchasers and mortgagees of interests in expectancy. Is there any one of these to which I could not move an Amendment in Committee, and to any extent I please, certainly as regards abatements? I have no doubt we should require an Instruction if this were a proposal to raise new taxes. That would be impossible without an Instruction, because nobody but the Government can put down a proposal to raise taxes. But, as I understand, it has been the right of the subject as represented by Members in this House for generations to move always for reductions of duties, and it would be a most unfortunate thing, there-
  406
  fore, if this Instruction were passed, unless fully and adequately explained by those who have thought it necessary.
  I come now to the last item in the Instruction, namely, the National Debt, and here I speak with some doubt, for it was with that matter the ruling of Mr. Speaker was more immediately concerned. Mr. Speaker has ruled that the National Debt requires a special Resolution, and if there was no Resolution in Committee on which to found a Bill, it is a question whether it would be possible to move Amendments in Committee until there is a Resolution. I am inclined to think, speaking on the spur of the moment, that the Instruction is necessary so far as the National Debt Resolution is concerned. I limit myself to saying that I am inclined to think so, but as regards the Death Duties and Income Tax I respectfully think that this Instruction is not merely surplusage, but may become mischievous surplusage. I am pronouncing nothing except from the standpoint of caution. I am asking information. I am raising doubt. I am not pontificating upon anything. The subject is most difficult to understand, but we have not got light from the Government upon it. The Secretary to the Treasury, when he moved the Instruction, could have gone with fullness into its character and into the reasons for proposing it. I did not apprehend him so to do, and I say that this Instruction may have consequences which some of us in other Sessions may see reason to regret. Therefore I personally protest against it.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I do not intend to go at any length into the question of procedure which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy). I think it is a very important question which has been raised with regard to the first two subjects mentioned in the Instruction. I think an Instruction is necessary for the National Debt. But without venturing to lay down any law in the matter, I think the hon. and learned Member is correct when he says that the Instruction is not necessary in respect of Income Tax and Death Duties. I wish to address myself to the extraordinary arguments given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for rejecting the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend. The argument which he gave was practically this: "If I accept the Amendment, I shall be reverting to the old custom whereby every private Member in the

  407
  House was at liberty to raise grievances on the Finance Bill just as grievances are discussed in Supply. When we were in Opposition we availed ourselves of this, but now that we are in power we do not like the Opposition to avail themselves of what we ourselves did, and consequently we are going to refuse to accept the Amendment, and we will give perhaps later on an opportunity of doing what we ourselves did, namely, discussing grievances before granting Supply." What is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for taking this position? He says, "Oh, there were pages of Amendments!" He was candid enough to admit that when he was in Opposition he took part in the same procedure, but he says, "It is different now. It is a Radical Government, and we are in a different position with the House of Lords." That is practically the foundation of his argument, and it is always brought up on every occasion by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. What was the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman did not accept the Amendment? It was because, when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, he took a course which was never attempted by any other Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far as I can remember. Instead of taking the Finance Bill at the proper time he put it off until the end of the Session, and so avoided that discussion which we have a right to claim as an Opposition. And so far from its being the fact that this Opposition put down pages of Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman himself put down when he was in opposition, the very reverse is the fact. I, myself, in consultation with the present Lord Murray, have often and often said, "We will agree that the Debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill shall be limited to two or three days, because you are putting it off to such a very late period of the Session, that we should be kept here until September or October if we availed ourselves of the custom of which every Opposition has availed itself." If the right hon. Gentleman will consult Lord Murray he will find that my statement is absolutely correct. Over and over again, owing to the right hon. Gentleman putting off his Budget to such a late date, we were driven at last to say that, for the purpose of saving the House as a whole very great inconvenience, we should allow the right hon. Gentleman to get his
  408
  Budget in a much shorter time than he ever allowed any Chancellor of the Exchequer on our side to get his Budget.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet has not given the whole of the bargain, and what he has omitted is rather material from the Opposition point of view. I have never known an arrangement of that kind which did not also involve at least half a dozen concessions to the Opposition. The advantage, indeed, was entirely on their side, because the Government, in order to get their Budget on those occasions, have to make certain concessions to the Opposition.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was not saying that we got nothing out of it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in nearly every case his representative got the better of the representative on our side. Still, our particular representative, whoever he was, was not so absolutely foolish as to give everything to the right hon. Gentleman. But that does not touch my point, which was that the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a smaller opposition to his Budgets, with exception of the 1909 Budget, than any other Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he has put them off to such a late date that it was impossible without putting the House to very great inconvenience to discuss the Budget in the proper way. And it was because the right hon. Gentleman had done that that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act was passed, because Mr. Gibson Bowles proceeded to take an action in a Court of Law, which he won, and which necessitated the passing of that Act. I would like hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand really where they are. When we were sitting on that side nothing was more strongly urged by the then Opposition than that financial questions ought to be discussed. I remember the late Lord Wolverhampton coming down, and making a very powerful speech as to the wickedness of the then Government in preventing financial questions being properly discussed. He was cheered by the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, joined on the attack on the then Government on the ground that financial questions were not adequately discussed. That was one of the great weapons of the Opposition towards the end of the Parliament of 1900. Now when we have the right hon. Gentleman in power we actually find him opposing an Amendment by my hon. and learned Friend which would restore to the

  409
  House the old facility of discussing everything connected with finance, and we find him doing it for the reason, which I think is a very bad one, that it would save him a little time, and also because the Revenue Bill affords an opportunity on which discussion can take place afterwards. The hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe says that he knows that the Revenue Bill is going to pass. How does he know? Even if the right hon. Gentleman has told him—and I am not making any charge against the veracity of the right hon. Gentleman—how does the hon. and learned Gentleman know that the Revenue Bill is going to pass?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I did not say that I knew it. I said that it had been promised by the Government, and I have every reason to believe that they intend to keep their promise.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Member is not quite so long in the House as I am, but he knows what Governments do, and what value can be attached to promises of that kind. I do not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his promise, deliberately intended to deceive him, but I do say that when we get towards the end of August, and the hon. and learned Member reminds the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his promise, the reply will be, "I am very sorry to say that, though I have taken the very greatest trouble to carry out that promise, yet owing to the conduct of the Opposition, and possibly even to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I am unable to do it. So much time has been taken up with other matters that I really cannot do it, but I will see that you get a chance next Session." That is how the promise will be carried out.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: This Amendment, though technical in form, contains the priceless principle of the right of this House to control expenditure, and to control it by being enabled to discuss on the Finance Bill itself, and not on the Revenue Bill, all the main questions relating to the finance of the year. We have been taunted with delaying matters. My hon. and learned Friend has been taunted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with taking a week to prepare a speech, and rummaging in dustbins and matters of that kind. We wish that the right hon. Gentleman would take a week to prepare his Budgets. If he did, this House would not
  410
  be reduced constantly to a condition of financial chaos, nor would the City be in the condition of financial confusion in which it is to-day. I think that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cork deserved an answer from one of the Law Officers of the Crown. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman in moving this Instruction is that we could not, without that Instruction, discuss matters relating to Income Tax and questions of that kind. The hon. and learned Member, in reply, says, "I do not believe that that is so. I do not believe that that Instruction is necessary so far as Income Tax is concerned, though it may be necessary so far as the National Debt is concerned." I agree with that contention. The real point is that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his authority as Chancellor of the Exchequer, says that unless we pass this Instruction we should not have that free scope for debate which he desires to give us. My hon. and learned Friend says, "I will meet your generosity. If you are going to be generous, be really generous towards us. If you are going to have an entirely new system by which we can only discuss the Finance Bill under Instructions put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let us have that Instruction in its most perfect form. It is not a waste of time to discuss an entirely new financial procedure. After all, they will be on this side some day—it may not be just yet—and when that day comes, they will value, as we value, the old forms and the old procedure of this House and the old Rules, which guaranteed that no one, not even a person in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall play ducks and drakes with their financial procedure. Therefore, if this is to be a new procedure, as I understand it is, let us make it in the most perfect form."
  Surely the Amendment put down by my hon. and learned Friend deserves not only the consideration of the House, but support in the Lobby! If the House wants to put an Instruction down, and if it wants new procedure, let it put that procedure in a form which will enable us to return to the day, as to which you expressed a desire some days ago that we should return to it, when we can discuss all important matters under the Finance Bill, and not have them relegated to the Revenue Bill, the day of which may never appear in the lives of many of us. That is what I contend for, and it is necessary in order to enable us to have full scope for

  411
  full and impartial inquiry in all financial matters which time constantly brings to our attention. The only way in which we can so protect ourselves is to secure that on the Finance Bill, and not on the Revenue Bill, we should be able to discuss these matters. The right hon. Gentleman rather taunted my hon. and learned Friend by saying, "I do not think that you are really caring so much for strictness in matters of financial procedure as for turning me out." Of course we want to do both. If we turn the right hon. Gentleman out, we have some chance of reverting to the older and better procedure. We give the local authorities a far better chance of obtaining those Grants which are now denied them by Budget No. 2, we shall get money for the local authorities to spend on housing and things of that kind, and so we shall accomplish two good things by the shot directed against the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cork is, in my opinion, one of great importance. I would like to ask you whether it is necessary to take your ruling on the question on which the hon. and learned Member did not ask you to rule, whether it is necessary that this Instruction should be moved or not? The hon. and learned Member referred to the title of the Bill. I am not an authority on the procedure of this House, but it would seem from the title of that Bill that it would be in order, in the ordinary course, for any Member to put down Amendments dealing with Income Tax, Supertax, and Death Duties. I would ask you, therefore—I do not know whether I am in order in making this request—why it is necessary for the Government to put down this Instruction to enable the Committee to deal with Income Tax and Death Duties, and why is it not possible for Amendments to be put down without this Instruction having regard to the title of the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already explained more than once that I thought that it was necessary to have that part of the Instruction which deals with the National Debt, for the reasons which I have given. With regard to that part of the Instruction which deals with the Income Tax and the Death Duties, I under-
  412
  stand that the necessity for it arises from the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anxious to accept an Amendment to the existing law as a result of which a fresh charge may be imposed on certain individuals, and that he is moved to do so by the pressure put upon him by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras. It is in order to meet the view of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that for greater security, and in order that he might not be met in the Committee with some objection, he should have an Instruction from the House to the Committee dealing with the particular subject which the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras wishes to raise.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: On the point of Order. May I ask you whether that would in any sense dispense the Chancellor of the Exchequer from having a Resolution in Committee? I should say that if he carries his Resolution in Committee he can then move his new Clause without any Instruction, and no Instruction is necessary. I therefore respectfully submit that this Instruction will in no sense dispense from the Resolution in Committee which has been declared to be necessary, and that, therefore, the Instruction as regards the power to move an Amendment is really wholly unnecessary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will not say that it is wholly unnecessary, but it is only proposed as a matter of precaution. It is perfectly true that it will be necessary—and I have said so once or twice—to have a Resolution of fresh charges are going to be imposed. To meet the case of the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras this Resolution will be necessary in order to give the Committee full power to deal with the matter. I think, on the whole, and considering the circumstances that the Instruction is desirable, there can be no harm in it, as I do not know what view the Chairman of Ways and Means may take of the Amendments.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Shall we be entitled, Sir, to quote your ruling another year, that there is to be no limitation or restriction where there is no Instruction?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly hope so. My ruling is given to tide over a difficulty, and to help the House.
  Mr. CASSEL: In reference to myself, I can only say that what I asked the right hon. Gentleman for was a Resolution to enable, and not an Instruction.
  Mr. GRETTON: There are several difficulties on this point of Order. I understand your ruling, Sir—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—this is a very important matter, and I would like some guidance in regard to it, and I desire, if I may respectfully say so, that it should be considered a little further—I understand your ruling, Sir, to mean, after what you have said, that this is not a ruling on the general principle, but that it is an expression of your opinion as to the means of dealing with a particular difficulty arising out of the peculiar circumstances of this year, and that you do not desire to make it a precedent in any way affecting the rights of Debate in Committee on the Finance Bill which Members had previously.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. I never suggested any restriction, nor do I understand that there is any restriction in any way. It is perfectly true that I approved the Instruction in order to get over the difficulty which confronts us.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One word of explanation. I do not understand that this Instruction is necessary for anything which the Government propose in the Bill, because we have the Resolutions in Ways and Means, excepting so far as the National Debt is concerned. As to all the other proposals, we have got the Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means adopted by the House. I was advised that it might be necessary in order to enable me to meet the pledge given to the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras to substitute this Instruction for the usual Resolution empowering the Committee to make a general amendment of the law. I was advised that the Instruction was necessary in order to enable the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose an alteration in the general law, and it was entirely in view of that that I moved the Instruction to meet the pledge I have given.
  Mr. CASSEL: I should not like it to be thought that I have raised any difficulty with regard to something which has been done merely to meet a point raised by me. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman was going to do in order to meet my point was to put down a Resolution and not an Instruction at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what the Amendment of the hon and learned Gentleman is. If it is an Amendment which involves a charge, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means might rule that it was necessary to have a Resolution in Committee, but, assuming that it does not involve a charge the Debate might then proceed.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask you, Sir, whether this Instruction will enable the Committee to do anything that it could not have done without the Instruction. The hon. and learned Member for Cork noticed that the title of the Bill deals with Income Tax and Death Duties, and surely Amendments on those points could be moved without an Instruction, and, if that be so, is not the Instruction out of order. It is laid down in Sir Erskine May's book:—
  "The principles which guide and limit the system of Instructions on going into Committee may be thus stated:—First, an Instruction must empower the Committee to do something which the Committee is not otherwise empowered to do."
  I have often heard Instructions ruled out of order, on the ground that they merely empowered the Committee to do something which they already had the power to do. In regard to the title of the Bill, at all events that part of the Instruction which deals with the Income Tax duty, is out of order.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I think, Sir, your ruling last year is germane to the point we are now considering. It was on a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, who, on the Finance Bill of last year, called attention to the fact that he intended to ask for a new Clause on the question relating to Income Tax between husband and wife, and you, Sir, were asked by my hon. and learned Friend as to whether or not it would be possible for him to move an Amendment in regard to the title, which was not so wide a title as that of the present Bill. You, Sir, observed that my hon. Friend attached too much weight to the title. That does not arise now. The title this year is wider. What you said, Sir, last year was this:—
  "I think the hon. and learned Member attaches too much importance to the title of the Bill. The title is only a summary of the contents. The valid and enacting words are those contained in the different Clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member is entitled under the Standing Order to move any Amendments which are relevant to the contents of the Bill. I will read the Standing Order; it is Number 34:—
  'It shall be an Instruction to all Committees of the Whole House to which Bills may be committed, that

  415
  they have power to make such Amendments therein as they shall think fit, provided they be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.'
  If, therefore, the hon. Member's Amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.… then he will be entitled to move them. If they are not relevant, he will not be permitted to move them. The Standing Order goes on to say:—
  'But that if any such Amendments shall not be within the title of the Bill, they do amend the title accordingly, and do report the same specially to the House.'
  So that if the hon. and learned Member can persuade the Chairman of Ways and Means that his Amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, and if he can persuade the Committee to accept them then he can amend the title. I am afraid I cannot give him any assistance in that. I do not think I ought to take upon myself a duty which is by custom and authority placed upon the Chairman of Ways and Means, namely, to decide what Amendments are relevant and what Amendments are not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill."
  Therefore you have laid it down. Sir, that under the Standing Order 34 my hon. and learned Friend, having regard to the title of the Bill, would, under the existing title of the Finance Bill, be able to move this very Amendment, and therefore this Instruction is unnecessary, I submit, on this ruling of last year, and is out of order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If it is being assumed that I am trying to prevent discussion, I confess I do not understand that. I never suggested this Instruction to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I certainly approved of it, in regard to that part relating to the National Debt, as being necessary in order to bring that Clause within the purview of the Committee, and also to make it quite certain that an Amendment which may be put down by the hon. and learned Gentleman for St. Pancras could be raised in Committee and discussed. I cannot say for certain whether the Chairman of Ways and Means will or will not rule that the Amendment may be discussed. I have no power in regard to what may be the view of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I am satisfied that this Instruction, at all events, makes it quite certain that the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras's Amendment, when it is proposed, will be within the power of the Committee to decide. If hon. Members think it is undesirable they can strike it out, and then perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will fall in with their view, but it seems to me that would imperil their case.
  Mr. POLLOCK: If I may respectfully say so, what you state to-day, Sir, is not the question of merely whether or not a particular Amendment will be in order, hut what we ask is that hereafter your
  416
  decision to-day shall not be quoted to make it impossible to move such an Amendment or analogous Amendments on the Finance Bill, unless and until an Instruction has been moved. If that were so, then this House would be in a poorer position than it was last year, when you called attention to Standing Order 34, under which there was power to move an Amendment. We are reluctant, Sir, to accept the Instruction to-day, but the House will be distinctly the poorer if we are to limit or get rid of the wider ruling which you gave last year, and under which Amendments were possible. We should be placed in this position, that, unless and until a particular Instruction had been given out of grace by the particular Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, we would be unable to move such Amendments as this. It is on these grounds, and as a matter of general practice, that I hope the Instruction will not be held to be necessary to-day, but that the wider ruling of last year will prevail for the use of private Members, on which ever side of the House they may happen to be, in all future years.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I quite understand the point of view of the hon. and learned Member, and I do not think that this Instruction will in any way limit the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means in future in accepting Amendments. A special state of circumstances has arisen in connection with the Bill which requires special treatment in order to regulate it. That is really the genesis of what has taken place.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I rise to correct the Chancellor of the Exchequer's history, and to ask him one question. We now understand, in regard to the Instruction, that the only reason for it, from the Government point of view, is that it is necessary to bring into order the part relating to the National Debt, and to enable an Amendment to be moved which might increase the charge. With regard to the Death Duties, is that the case too? Why is there reference to the Death Duties put in? Is it the expectation of the Government that some Amendment will be moved to increase the charge in that respect? Unless there is something of that kind, Mr. Speaker's ruling has no reference to the Death Duties, and it is quite unnecessary with reference to the Income Tax of the year. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong when he said it had been the practice of

  417
  the Opposition for some years past to pile up great numbers of Amendments on the Finance Bill relating to changes in the general law. As regards the Finance Bill of 1909, the proposals of the Government were quite enough to occupy the whole time of the House, without any such procedure on the part of the Opposition. It was not resorted to in 1910, and I do not think it was resorted to in 1911. It is true that in 1912 there was a considerable number of Amendments on the Order Paper, but they could easily have been disposed of during the month of August; but one day the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and made, without any pressure on our part, a certain number of what, I must admit, were valuable concessions. What happened last year? He brought in a Revenue Bill for the first time, and the procedure he complains of was adopted against the Revenue Bill by his own Friends. One after another they piled up an immense quantity of Amendments, simply because they could not get the whole of their own way on one or two points. The representatives of the Glasgow school set down every Amendment to the Revenue Bill which ingenuity could suggest. What was done last year may easily he done again. What guarantee can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us that we shall have a chance on the Revenue Bill, because his own Friends entirely deprived us before of that chance simply and solely, as was stated very frankly just now by the hon. Baronet who spoke just now, because they could not get their way on one small point which had become an obsession to them. He must lay the blame on his own Friends that we had not a proper discussion on the subject last year.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: One of the essential reasons we have for this procedure is this: Undoubtedly in the discussions on the Finance Bill on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman, in order to get it through, felt obliged to offer certain concessions to meet certain grievances which were brought before him. It is therefore very desirable on the part of those who still think they have grievances to retain the right to raise such questions on this Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman gives me a rather deprecatory look because, no doubt, he gave me concessions, for which I may say I am very grateful. What chance would anyone get in the Revenue Bill of raising such questions? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, if he
  418
  made a promise to consider questions on the Revenue Bill, would carry that promise out if he could, but I very strongly support the Amendment, knowing perfectly well the advantages that accrued to me from a form of procedure which I would like to see retained.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I desire to support the Amendment from a non-party point of view. We all recognise that the torpedo launched by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) went straight to its mark, and that the Government battleship has been damaged, and that an attempt is now being made to put it in order. What really concerns hon. Members on both sides is to know how long we are going to be kept in this House, and how much of this Budget which has been called the "Ratepayers' Budget" is going to be passed in the course of the present Session. That is the really important point.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The important point is not relevant to this Amendment.
  Mr. NEWMAN: The Amendment proposes to widen the scope of the Budget, and if adopted we shall have fuller discussions. The country wants longer and fuller discussions, and now that we are paid Members the country may get angry if we do not sit here for a very lengthened period, and put through a good part of this Ratepayers' Budget. If we only put through a comparatively small part, the people will say, "You are not earning your pay; you are paid for the year, and sit only for six months; you should not accept your pay." Therefore, I do suggest in all seriousness to hon. Members opposite that they ought to pass this Ratepayers' Budget if they possibly can, and ought not to mind an Autumn Session or the dog days of August, but should go on and earn their pay. For that reason, I support the Amendment.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I cannot but think that the House is in some difficulty, first, as to the Instruction, and second as to the Amendment. If I were asked my opinion I would say that the Instruction was unnecessary and that the Amendment was out of order. It appears to me that by putting this Instruction from the Chair, you, Sir, in effect declare that it is necessary, and therefore, that without it, none of those Amendments otherwise would be capable of being moved. The

  419
  Instruction deals specifically with matters referred to in the title of the Bill, but the Amendment deals with matters which are undoubtedly outside the title of the Bill. Therefore, it appears to me we are in this position, that the Instruction only enables us to do that which we can do without it, while the Amendment seeks to enable us to do that which the Instruction cannot enable us to do, namely, to go outside the title of the Bill. I put it respectfully that the Amendment really reduces the Instruction to an absurdity, and conflicts with the rules of the House by placing on the Order Paper a declaration that in Committee on this Bill we should have the power to move Amendments which are not within the title of the Bill. I submit also that even as regards the National Debt, this Instruction is unnecessary, because even as regards that, it does not dispense with the necessity for a Resolution to enable us to do anything.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: You ruled, Sir, with regard to the National Debt that this Instruction was necessary. May I recall to your memory that two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward a Resolution in Committee disposing op a surplus which was opposed by many of us. Some interval elapsed and eventually five millions of that amount went to the reduction of debt, and a million was allocated to the Navy, and half a million to Uganda. That was all done in Committee without any Instruction. May I therefore submit that an Instruction is not necessary for altering the Sinking Fund,
  but that that can be done and requires to be done by a Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think if the hon. Member looks it up he will find that on that occasion the Finance Bill was brought in on the National Debt Resolution. The whole difficulty here has arisen from the fact that the Finance Bill was not brought in on that Resolution. I had not the opportunity of looking up the case he refers to, but I think he will find that what I have said is what occurred.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Instruction having been moved, is an Amendment to that Instruction which conflicts with the title of the Bill in order? This Amendment proposes that we should be enabled to deal in Committee with Customs and Inland Revenue. That is not within the scope of the Bill, as there is nothing in the Bill about Customs and Inland Revenue.
  Mr. SPEAKER: But there is something about Customs, certainly.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Inland Revenue is not.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I submit Income Tax is part of the Inland Revenue.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The title of the Bill is wrong. Inland Revenue is nowhere included in the title.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES.

  [5.44 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Adamson, William

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brunner, John F. L.

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  De Forest, Baron

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Buxton, Noel

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dillon, John

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Doris, William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Duffy, William J.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barnes, George N.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Clough, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clynes, John R.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cotton, William Francis

  Falconer, James

  Black, Arthur W.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Boland, John Pius

  Crooks, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crumley, Patrick

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Cullinan, John

  Field, William

  Brace, William

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Gill, A. H.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Robinson, Sidney

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meagher, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Greig, Colonel James William

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Middlebrook, William

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

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hackett, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Hancock, John George

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheeny, David

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morison, Hector

  Shortt, Edward

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Snowden, Philip

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hayward, Evan

  Neilson, Francis

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sutherland, John E.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Taylor. John W. (Durham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hinds, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hodge, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Dowd, John

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shee, James John

  Webb, Henry

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  King, Joseph

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Pratt, J. W.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

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

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Leach, Charles

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Reddy, Michael

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E)

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  M'Callum. Sir John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Campion, W. R.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bird, Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Blair, Reginald

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Cautley, H. S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Cave, George

  Banner, Sir John Harmood-

  Bowden, G. R. Harland

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Barnston, Harry

  Boyton, James

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Butcher, John George

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  422

  423

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Currie, George W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Royds, Edmund

  Dixon, C. H.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kerry, Earl of

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Fell, Arthur

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Macmaster, Donald

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Glazebrock, Captain Philip K.

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Tickler, T. G.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Gretton, John

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Moore, William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

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

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

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

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Nield, Herbert

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Winterton, Earl

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

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Hills, John Waller

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Younger, Sir George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Horne, E.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Cassel and Mr. Mount.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words "and the National Debt."
  The effect of this Amendment would be to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer tampering with the new Sinking Fund. The right hon. Gentleman for some unknown reason—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet cannot discuss the merits of the Clause. The question is whether the Committee shall have power to discuss it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I thought I might be allowed to give reasons why I think the Committee ought not to discuss it. Clause 15 in the Finance Bill deals with the National Debt, but that Clause is out of order because there was no Resolution dealing with the National Debt, and this Instruction is necessary if that Clause is to be in order, and a discussion is to take
  424
  place upon it. The effect of the omission of these words from the Instruction will be to prevent the House from discussing the Clause dealing with the National Debt, and I thought I should be in order in giving reasons why I think the House ought not to discuss the National Debt on this occasion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Baronet can give good reasons for not discussing the matter, he will be in order. But, assuming that he does not convince the House, he must not anticipate the discussion of the Clause on its merits, which would take place in Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Without discussing whether the Clause is right or wrong, I will confine myself to pointing out the actual effect of my Amendment. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the New Sinking Fund from £24,500,000 to £23,500,000 renders this Instruction necessary, and the effect of

  425
  my Amendment will be to prevent that from being done. It is very important to consider whether or not the amount of the Sinking Fund should be tampered with on every successive Budget. This is evidently an afterthought of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because when he introduced the Resolutions upon which the Finance Bill is founded, he did not introduce a Resolution dealing with the National Debt. We are entitled to assume that the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly conversant with the rules of procedure, and that, as he said nothing in his Resolutions about the National Debt, he then considered that the sum devoted to the National Debt should be left alone. We may assume, therefore, that after the Resolutions were passed, and the Bill had been ordered, something occurred which has caused the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce these words into the Instruction. I do not see many economists on the other side of the House. I am not sure whether I can include in the ranks of the economists the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones). The hon. Gentleman has moods, but he sometimes enunciates very sound economical doctrines, and I feel sure that in his heart he would like to support the Amendment which I am moving. The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) really is a financial economist. He has the courage of his opinions, and will no doubt support my Amendment. I hope that all true economists on the other side will support me in restraining the Chancellor of the Exchequer from going into these devious courses. I might address an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman himself. On many occasions he has stated that I have been consistent in endeavouring to ensure that money shall not be wasted, nor extravagant expenditure incurred.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is apparently making the speech which he would make in Committee if the question were being discussed. He must not anticipate the discussion in Committee.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was only appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to support me when I am endeavouring to help him to follow the path of economy, which on these occasions he has sometimes told us he would like to do if he were not pressed by other Members to take the wrong course. However, I think I have
  426
  made my point perfectly clear. It is quite evident that this Amendment ought to be accepted, for it is in the right direction, and I trust therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. If I appreciate the reason why the Instruction is drawn in the present form it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is endeavouring by means of the Instruction to make good—if he can make good—the mistake which he previously made in having no Resolution at all in reference to the National Debt. Personally I think procedure ought, as far as possible, to follow on all occasions, for this reason: that if the House is to know where it is, or what ought to be its course, it should not have any difficulty placed in its way. This sort of exception, which is mainly due to want of forethought on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, form bad precedents, and ought not to be overlooked by the House. The right hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment has spoken of it as afterthought. If I could imagine that there was either forethought or afterthought in any portion of the matter I would be more content. For my part I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is content to go on his own course, on the course which he is minded to take at a particular time, without any thought for this House or Committee, or for those whom he ought to represent, or indeed for those whom he ought to consult! The purpose of this Instruction is to make good the lapse that has occurred by reason of there being no Resolution, and the right course now is to go back and to proceed by Resolution. There is no difficulty whatever in proceeding according to the regular course. On that ground I venture to suggest that this is a proper Amendment. The House ought to take into its hands, and ought to determine that it will have all questions of finance left in its hands, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be its most trusted servant in following out the proper procedure which has been adopted, and maintained, throughout a long course of years: not because there must be precedents, but because there is good reason for them, namely, that the House ought to confine itself as a primary duty to the regular treatment of finance.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps it would be convenient to rise now before the Chancellor of the Exchequer to add another argument to those which have been put by my right hon. Friends behind

  427
  me. The additional reason which I desire to urge in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is that any alteration in the provision for the redemption of the National Debt has become unnecessary. The situation has changed since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget Statement. He then found that after such additional taxation as he was inclined to propose, or thought ought to be proposed for the year, that he was still something like £1,000,000 short of the money required. Accordingly, on the tyrant's plea of necessity, he raided the Sinking Fund for, I think, the third time since this Government has been in office. When I say raided it, I understand this is the third permanent diminution of the amount provided for for which the present Government is responsible, apart from isolated raids on particular sums. I submit that the Government can no longer urge that it is necessary to raid the Sinking Fund at all. The right hon. Gentleman has announced—wrongly, as I think—though that is not the point I can discuss now, or that will be open to us I suppose till we, get into Committee—but he has decided that he will not make the temporary Grants to the local authorities this year which he contemplated in his Budget Statement.
  Instead, therefore, of being in great straits, he has more money than he needs already provisionally authorised by the Resolutions which have been before the House. Not only is that the case, but he himself has already revised himself in one particular, because he said the revenue is coming in better than he anticipated. As I said on a previous occasion, and as I repeat now, I think he has very seriously underestimated the yield of another of his taxes, unless—I must guard myself by saying this—unless he is convinced that it will be possible to evade the new tax which he is imposing. Therefore, from both my reason of the certainty in part and the expectation in further degree that taxes will yield more than he at first anticipated, he has now announced that he is going to spend less money, and it becomes quite unnecessary to raise this million at all. There is no reason for interfering with the Sinking Fund, and I submit, therefore, that there is no reason for the Committee passing this Instruction.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that these matters ought to be dealt with when the Clause comes up for discussion in Com-
  428
  mittee. The right hon. Gentleman might then be able to show a very good case for striking out the Clause altogether. Under the Instruction the Committee will have power to discuss all these matters, and this seems to be anticipating the Committee discussion.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I respectfully suggest that it would be a disastrous position were the Government to accept the Amendment of the Opposition. Let us take what has already been done. If the Government like to take advantage of it, the Chairman of Committee has been put into a position in which he was never placed before. The House has negatived the proposal of the Member for St. Pancras, that the Committee should have the power to deal with Customs and Inland Revenue, including Excise. The House has directed the Committee that they have not to move any Amendments to the Instruction. Take the Tea Duty. If the Chairman of Committees likes, he is in the most splendid position of his long career, because he can say that the House has decided to negative the proposition that the Customs and Inland Revenue matter can be dealt with in Committee. Similarly if this Amendment is passed, what will be the inevitable result? It will be that the House will have refused the Committee the power to deal with questions arising out of the Finance Bill. It seems, therefore, that this demonstrates, if it could possibly be demonstrated further, the utterly absurd position that the Government have taken up by this Instruction. If we leave out "the National Debt," it means that the Committee will have no power to deal with the National Debt. I certainly think that there never was the absurdity of a position taken up by the Government demonstrated more than in the fact that this House has carried a Resolution refusing to allow an Amendment in the Customs part of the Bill to be moved.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon Baronet who moved this Amendment was opposed to treat this Instruction as an Instruction to the Committee to reduce the provision for the National Debt, and the right hon. Gentleman who followed was disposed to do the same thing. That is not the proposal at all. If that were the case, then the Committee simply could not discuss the thing; the House would have already come to its decision. That is

  429
  not the point of the Instruction, as Mr. Speaker has already pointed out. The point of the Instruction is that it will enable hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to urge the same considerations which they have urged this afternoon. For instance, take the consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has been urging: now that we have reduced our liabilities, that here is a means of getting rid of the need for providing more money. That is the very point which will arise when we get on to the Income Tax question. All we want is for the Committee to take these things into account, so that the House may adjudicate upon them when the Bill is reported.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I desire to support my hon. Friends though on somewhat different grounds, and because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has jumped over the minor forms of the House in pressing this Instruction. The old immemorial form was that any provision of this kind must be based on Resolution. There is very great importance in keeping to these forms. They may be very annoying and exceedingly irksome to the Government. They may be also irksome in the case of private Members promoting a Bill when they find that their Bill is stopped at a point by the necessity of getting a Resolution, which Resolution is to be reported to the House. But these forms have great value, not merely because they are traditional, and not merely because they come down to us, but because they form a real check upon the extravagance of this House and of Governments, and a real opportunity for the House to inform itself as to the financial effect of propositions that are submitted to it. I do not say that this will be a very bad case, but it is a clear breach of established custom, and this Instruction is a way of getting over it. The ordinary course would have been by Resolution—to authorise that the Committee should have the power of reducing the provision for the National Debt. That is, of course, only an indirect way of increasing the charge; but the principle is exactly the same. The ordinary Financial Resolution is necessary when the charge is to be increased, and a similar Resolution authorises the Committee when provision is to be diminished. It is an indirect way of increasing the charge. We have here no Committee Resolution passed, and no Committee Resolution reported. Instead of this a new
  430
  procedure is suddenly adopted, and by means of an Instruction, thus evading the rules that the wisdom of our ancestors set up for us. On that ground I protest against it. The Government did not look closely at the matter when they were dealing with old traditions of the House, so as to found their Bill upon a Resolution. By the procedure they adopted they ignored the safeguards which the wisdom of our ancestors set up for business of this kind, and it is, therefore, necessary for the House to assert vigilance and impose what check it can upon this exception. Let me express surprise at seeing on the opposite benches the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He seems to be watching these proceedings somewhat closely, and I can only suppose that his vigilant eye is on this £1,000,000 with a view to increasing the "Transferred Sum" which would be necessary owing to the truncation of his original proposals.
  Mr. GRETTON: The effect of this Amendment would, of course, be that if it is carried the House would have disagreed with the Government, and decided that it is not desirable in Committee to interfere with or to diminish the Sinking Fund, which is devoted to the services of the National Debt, in any way. The procedure which my hon. Friend alluded to has been established in order to prevent Governments bringing in hasty and hurried financial proposals. There is nothing which a Government should be more meticulous in its care than to follow every regulation and rule in connection with its proposals for taxing the subject. These safeguards which have been dispensed with to-day were provided for the express purpose of making the Government and Ministers of the Crown careful in the taxation they propose. As my hon. Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London pointed out, this is a hasty proposal, and I submit that the House would be well advised not to give its assent to the course proposed, and not to allow the Government by the way they have found by this method of Instruction to set aside the old procedure, and the House would be well advised to insist that a Resolution should be brought in in proper form, so that the Finance Bill should be founded upon Resolution discussed in the whole House. We are placed at a great disadvantage on the present occasion. It is quite true there was a Resolution which the House passed, but it was understood

  431
  to deal with the Revenue Bill, and the House did not know they were dealing with that Finance Bill when that Resolution was passed, because the Finance Bill was brought in and placed upon the Table and ordered to be printed. The Resolution was passed dealing with another matter. My hon. Friend is right in moving his Amendment, and I hope there will be very considerable support for it from private Members, and from others, as this is the only opportunity we have for protesting against this procedure.
  Mr. PETO: On the point of Order raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork. I understood him to argue that if this Instruction is passed any matter contained in the title of the Bill, such as Customs Duty, and not contained in the Instruction, could not be discussed—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot go back on what has been discussed. This is a new Amendment, and if the hon. Member has any point of Order upon that, he can make inquiry.
  Mr. PETO: The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork was arguing that if this Amendment was passed it will be practically limiting the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means to
  deal only with such questions as would be left in the Instruction to the Committee, and that anything outside this Instruction would be out of order, no matter what the Rules of the House might be.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If this Amendment is passed, it will not be open to the Committee to discuss the question of the National Debt or provision in respect of it
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: By negativing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, have we not negatived the right to move Amendments dealing either with Customs or Excise?
  Mr. POLLOCK: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what the House decided was that the words proposed to be left out should stand?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better stick to this question of the National Debt, and not reopen the other. I have given an answer that if the words "and National Debt" are struck out, it would not be open to discuss the question of the National Debt.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 182.

  Division No. 144.]

  AYES.

  [6.20 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Adamson, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Alden, Percy

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Arnold, Sydney

  Clough, William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Clynes, John R.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Field, William

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Compton- Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Barnes, George N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Cotton, William Francis

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Crooks, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Cullinan, John

  Glanville, Harold James

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Davias M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

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

  Brace, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  De Forest, Baron

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hackett, John

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dillon, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Doris, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Buxton, Noel

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hayward, Evan

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rowlands, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, John J.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Hewart, Gordon

  Morison, Hector

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hinds, John

  Muldoon, John

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

  Hodge, John

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Sheehy, David

  Hogge, James Myles

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Shortt, Edward

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Neilson, Francis

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smith, H. B. (Lees, Northampton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Snowden, Philip

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sutton, John E.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Maliey, William

  Thomas, J. H.

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Kenyon, Barnet

  O'Shee, James John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Verney, Sir Harry

  King, Joseph

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Waiters, Sir John Tudor

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

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wardle, George J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Leach, Charles

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Webb, H.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pratt, J. W.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

  Primrose, Hon, Neil James

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Radford, George Heynes

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  M'Kean, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Reddy, Michael

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Middlebrook, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Molloy, Michael

  Robinson, Sydney

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boyton, James

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Butcher, John George

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

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

  Currie, George W.

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Barnston, Harry

  Campion, W. R.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cassel, Felix

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Cave, George

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Bird, Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Blair, Reginald

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Bowden, Major S. Harland

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Fell, Arthur

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  434

  435

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sandys, G. J.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Forster, Henry William

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrintgon)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Grefton, John

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

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Swift, Rigby

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Moore, William

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Touche, G. Alexander

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hills, John Waller

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk

  Randles, Sir John S.

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

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Younger, Sir George

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Royds, Edmund

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  F. Banbury and Mr. Pollock.

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

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I appeal to the Government to drop this absurd Instruction. There is considerable doubt on all sides as to whether the Instruction has any value. The right hon. Gentleman himself upon a remark from the Chair has shown that the Government does not want this Instruction, and he has distinctly declared that there is nothing in it which is necessary for these financial proposals, and the Opposition do not want it either. Some hon. Members wish to insert Amendments to widen the scope of the Bill, but the result, and the only result of this extraordinary Debate is that the House has made an Amendment declaring that custom is to be discarded. I do not think any assembly has ever before reached a more topsy-turvy or ridiculous position. Nobody can now say either on the demand of the Opposition or for the necessities of the Government this Instruction has the slightest value. What Member of the Opposition can say that he wants this Instruction in its present form, because any Amendment we like can be moved in Committee either in regard to the Death Duties, the
  436
  National Debt or the Income Tax. Therefore we have been engaged for the last three hours putting upon the Paper a solemn declaration that we may move Amendments on three points, which we could have moved without any Resolution at all. I think the only escape from this ridiculous and absurd position is that the Government should gracefully withdraw their own Instruction.
  Ordered, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the amendment of the Law relating to Income Tax (including Super-tax), Death Duties, and the National Debt."
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

PART I.

  CLAUSE I.—Customs.—(Duty on Tea.)
  The duty of Customs payable on tea until the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, under the Finance Act, 1913, shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid until the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,

  437
  on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say):—

  Tea, the pound

  fivepence.

  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper, has, I apprehend, been put down to prepare the way to the other Amendments which follow. I do not, however, think this is the place to move an Amendment for that purpose. Perhaps the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) will now move his first Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: I am not sure that I rightly understand your ruling, Mr. Whitley, as regards the Amendment to leave out the words "continue to." The words in question I understand are held to relate to the duty on Customs, and possibly to tea generally, and not to the specific words "fivepence" which terminate the Clause. Am I correct in my interpretation?
  The CHAIRMAN: There are two views which I might have taken—one a narrow view and the other a broad one. The narrow one would be to say that if the Motion were made on the words "continue to," the other Amendments would be ruled out. Therefore, I prefer to take the broader view and not the narrow one.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "at the following rates."
  I have a further consequential Amendment, which defines the rates which I propose to insert. The first is that where the value on importation exceeds 1s. the pound it should be 5d.; where it exceeds 9d., and does not exceed 1s., that it should be 4d., and where the value does not exceed 9d. I propose 3d. We have proceeded in the matter of the Income Tax upon a system under which we graduate the heaviest of the direct taxes. Now the Tea Duty is infinitely the heaviest of the indirect taxes, and it appears to me that it will be difficult for the Government to resist the argument that if it is right to graduate the direct taxation, as we have done, in order to place the heaviest burden upon the larger incomes, surely it must be equally right, while we maintain the necessity for indirect taxation, like the Tea Duty, that this duty should also be graduated upon the same principle. That is the principle of my Amendment, and I want to show that, quite apart from the principles which underlie the Amendments which follow mine and deal with other methods of re-
  438
  during the Tea Duty, there is a very good case to be made out for my Amendment, quite apart from the principle of Colonial Preference, and entirely apart from the principle of the more general lowering of the tax from 5d. to 4d. or 3d., as proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) and the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Hamilton).
  Quite apart from all this, I think we have a very good case for a reduction of the Tea Duty on the cheaper grades of tea, no matter where they are grown. It seems to me that in this matter we may get a certain amount of information of a very simple sort if you take the catalogue of any large grocery firm who stock a large number of different kinds of tea. There you will not find, as a matter of fact, that the cheapest tea is by any means always Colonial tea, and you will find that there are teas of all grades which come from India, Ceylon, and China. It is undoubtedly a fact that some of the very cheapest-tea—in fact, all the cheapest teas—are what are called blends. I take, for instance, the list of the Army and Navy Stores. I have studied their list for 1913 and for the present year, and I find that they do not cater for the poorest of the poor, and their lowest price tea is 1s. 3d. per pound. That tea is called a blend. The second cheapest tea at 1s. 4d. is a blend of Ceylon and China tea, and the third at 1s. 5d. is a blend of Indian and China tea. Now if we want to place a lighter burden upon those who can only afford the cheapest tea, we cannot do it better than by dealing with it upon a perfectly simple plan. It may be said that my proposal will constitute an ad valorem tax, and that it would be troublesome to collect. We may also be told that the tea-brokers in Mincing Lane are not in favour of that course. I have taken steps to find out, and I find that as they do not to any material extent pay the Tea Duty, what suits them best is to have the simplest possible thing, whether it is fair to all classes or not. If we are going to legislate only for the convenience of those who handle the tea in ports, I have no doubt it could be said that Mincing Lane does not like all these proposals, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be correct in continuing the tax at 5d. I do not, however, think that that is a sound argument. I do not think there would be any real difficulty in actually collecting the revenue on the basis of the Amendment I am putting before the Committee.

  439
  If it is said that there is any difficulty about finding out what is the value on importation of tea which involves a declaration that the Import Duty might be charged at 3d. instead of 5d., all tea above a certain value might have to be sold, as many commodities are on the Continent, in packets bearing a stamp which would be the difference in value, and would authorise the retailer to sell it, say, at 2s. a pound, in order to make it perfectly clear to the customer that the tea had paid the proper tax of 5d. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is that done?"] I am told it is done in the case of tobacco and other articles where it is found easier to collect the revenue by requiring a stamp to be put on the back of the article. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which country?"] In France. At any rate, if there happened to be any difficulty in collecting the tax, there are other ways which the ingenuity of the Customs Department might adopt by which this extra or Super-tax on the higher price teas might very easily be collected. May I point out to hon. Members behind me below the Gangway that this Clause in the Finance Bill applies equally to Ireland as it does to this country, and I think we ought to have their support in any proposal which would make tea not only cheaper where it is drunk most largely by the poorest of the people, but would also make it better. The idea of the grocery store in any neighbourhood where people are poor is to put a decent sound shilling tea upon the market. They know perfectly well the even money, 6d. for a half-pound packet or 3d. for a quarter-pound packet, is not only simple but attractive, and it is what the people they cater for really demand. I want to make that shilling tea not only a possibility, but a sound, wholesome drink when it is bought. I am perfectly certain that this diminution of 2d. in the pound in the Import Duty will bring a really sound shilling tea within the reach of everybody who cannot afford anything of a higher price.
  The Army and Navy Stores do not list anything under 1s. 3d. Under my proposal what does that mean? We will assume that the 5d. tax is entirely added to the price of tea. It does not matter for my present argument whether that is absolutely correct or not, but as nearly as it is in any commodity and in any tax that would be the case. Assuming, there-
  440
  fore, that it is added, that means that the value on import of that particular tea would be 10d. Under my proposal it would be charged 4d., and instead of being a 1s. 3d. tea, it would be 1s. 2d. Let us take tea, the value of which on import was only 1d. less—that is 9d. What happens there? I propose that the tax should be only 3d. Therefore you immediately get this, that a tea only 1d. less value on import, tea which is considered good enough to list in such a catalogue as that of the Army and Navy Stores, would become a shilling tea. I think that is the way to look at it, because this particular Amendment does propose to deal with people who cannot afford to pay a very high price. Once you realise my wish in putting this Amendment forward and secure a really sound, wholesome shilling tea, no matter where it comes from, what happens? The present duty on sugar is equal to a fifth of a penny in the pound, and that, translated in retail prices, means a farthing. That would mean that the price of the cheapest sugar will be 2d. per pound, whenever hon. Members opposite get their way, or whenever those on this side of the House, who have another method of dealing with the duty, get their way, and we manage to reduce, or the trade manages to reduce, the price of cheap sugar to a flat twopence, a quarter of a pound will cost a halfpenny, and the man or woman who goes to buy what is the smallest quantity of this practically essential commodity will get a quarter of a pound of tea, and a quarter of a pound of sugar thrown in for nothing, if the Committee passes the Amendment I now propose. I think that is going right down to the details where we ought to go, and it illustrates exactly how it would operate.
  I am perfectly certain that it is a reform which would meet the justice of the case, and in a vast number of cases it would simplify, and, if I may use the word, sweeten the lives of the very poorest of the people, because they would get the sugar for nothing, whereas now they have to pay a halfpenny for it, or rather more. It would have a very good effect, quite apart from the effect of other proposals put forward by other hon. Members with regard to the kind of tea that would be grown and produced. At the present time there is an absolute scramble to get in tea at a low enough importation price to carry this huge tax of 5d. and still command a retail price

  441
  within the reach of very poor people. The result is that we do not get Ceylon tea as many hon. Members think as the cheapest grade of tea, but we get these blends, as they are called, and we get the rubbish grown in China mixed with the decent tea grown in our Empire in order to get it down to these low prices. Therefore, our own tea is condemned in these low qualities not because of itself but because of the horrible stuff mixed with it. Hon. Members who have had any experience of tea growing and the whole of the process know perfectly well that the tendency, if you get great pressure, is to produce a cheap, heavy, bulky tea by means of what is called coarse plucking. That means that practically a lot of wood is sold with tea, and what is called red leaf and big leaves, which have very little value, and the finer plucking of tea is discouraged. That is all brought about to produce a heavy bulk of tea to bear this huge impost of 5d. in the pound. My proposal would open up more tea plantations, because there would be more demand for genuine tea, and people would have to find a different use for the rubbish if we can reduce the price of the lower price tea.
  The last argument that will be put forward against this Amendment is that it might have certain points that would commend themselves to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, as a matter of fact, it would cost a great deal too much. We have been listening to a Debate in the last three hours which has dealt almost entirely with the intricacies that have arisen in the disposal of the revenue which the Government find they cannot use for the purposes they originally intended it. We have been told repeatedly before that anything like a reduction in the Tea Duty from fivepence to threepence would mean £2,000,000 a year. The Tea Duty in the year 1912–13, which is the last year for which we have available figures, was £6,161,000. It might be true in an ordinary year, that nothing like a reduction costing £2,000,000 could be contemplated, and I do not propose such a reduction. I should be very pleased to make it all right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer by charging a higher duty on the higher price tea, but that would not be in the rules of order, and therefore I am bound to put it as a mere reduction graduated clown to meet the income as the Income Tax is graduated up in the other scale. There is no doubt that tea of the import
  442
  value of below ninepence in the pound is only a fraction of the total amount of tea imported, and it is perfectly true, as was brought forward in the Debates on this question in 1912 and last year, that by no means all the working classes ask for the cheapest tea. I am quite aware that there are a great many, and I am thankful to say it is so, of what are called the working classes who are connoisseurs of tea, and they or their wives insist on having the particular blend of tea that happens to suit their palate best, whether it costs a few pence more or less. That being so, there would still be a large demand for tea which has the very modest import value of 1s. or even a little above 1s. per pound, and all the teas above 1s. per pound—that is, anything above what is known as eighteen-penny tea—would pay the full tax at present.
  I find that the vast proportion of the teas which are catalogued are very much higher than that. There are very few of them which run below one and sixpence. Nearly all of them run up to four or five shillings, and two and sixpence, one and tenpence, and two shillings seems to be an ordinary price. All those teas will still pay fivepence under my proposal. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to give us any sort of estimate what the effect of this proposal would be. It is impossible for any private Member, like myself, to estimate closely, but, if I might hazard a suggestion, it could not cost anything like £1,000,000 to give this relief. Probably £500,000 would cover the whole of the cost of the reduction I propose. If I might make an appeal to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite, I do think, considering the very strong line they took with regard to the Sugar Duty, that we have here something which is really not contentious, which certainly is not too costly for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which would not commit them to any of the pernicious doctrines, as they regard them, of Colonial Preference or of Tariff Reform. It is simply a flat proposal to do what hon. Members are always talking about—to regulate the tax in accordance and in proportion to ability to pay. It seems to me an obviously simple, elementary proposal that we ought, even if we are going to abolish the food taxes, to begin with a fair, reasonable graduation of the tax, and have something which is not a penal tax upon the cheapest grades of tea.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member will forgive me for pointing out that the proposal he makes is not a novel one. It has been dealt with almost annually when the Tea Duty has been under discussion in this House, and it has always been resisted on two main grounds. The first is the difficulty of administration. The duty would, I presume, be charged on delivery of the tea from bond, just as it is now, and it would be absolutely impossible, in the absence of a simultaneous sale of the particular tea which has been cleared from bond, to assess its value. A fictitious value would have to be guarded against. You could not follow the tea into the hands of the retailer and charge the duty on the retail price.
  Mr. PETO: That is not my proposal. I propose to charge on importation, and not on the retail price.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. MONTAGU: As the tea is cleared from bond, that administrative difficulty would occur. The next argument is that, although an ad valorem duty on tea is always argued as penalising the higher price tea for the benefit of the lower price, it is not true to say that poor people drink bad tea, and that, therefore, you would not really be graduating the tax according to ability to pay. The hon. Member for Wiltshire asked for calculations as to the cost of his suggestion. I am informed, as the result of an examination of the current circulars of tea brokers, that the bulk of tea is priced at not more than 9d. per pound, ex-duty. The revenue would, therefore, lose 2d. per pound on a large proportion of the tea imported and, under the stimulus of the reduced duty, this proportion would rise. On most of the remainder of the tea a penny would be lost. The estimate of the tea revenue in the current year is £6,450,000, of which about £4,800,000 falls to be collected from July 1st onwards. If you assume that 2d. is lost on 70 per cent. of the import and 1d. on 20 per cent., and I think these are low estimates, the loss this year would be £1,550,000. The hon. Member for Wiltshire suggests that this is but a small amount for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make up. I do not believe, however, that either my right hon. Friend or the House will take the same view of a little item of a million and a half. But it is not necessary for me to attempt to find a new argument to answer the hon. Member, because I hope, and I hope with confidence, that the right
  444
  hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Chamberlain) will support the Government in the Division Lobby this evening on this Amendment, and thus justify his own admirable arguments against similar proposals in past years. It was he who pointed out, in the year 1905, that in 1834–5 there was an attempt to graduate the Tea Duty into three rates—1s. 6d., 2s. 2d., and 3s.—and he said that the discrimination then in force would not be applicable in the circumstances of to-day. That attempt, said the right hon. Gentleman,
  "to graduate the Tea Duty really broke down, because the Customs authorities found it impossible properly to distinguish between the different teas, and whatever theoretical attractions it might have to the hon Gentleman, it would prove harassing and annoying to the trade. It would require them to entrust an enormous discretion to the Customs authorities which could not be exercised without criticism, and which might in the end result in poor people having to pay a far higher price for their tea than they did now."
  I take that from the peroration of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but on looking through the Report, I find that almost every argument used by the hon. Member for Wiltshire this afternoon is answered in it. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Irish Benches behind because he had discovered that the Irish people drink tea. The right hon. Gentleman said he had consulted an hon. Member from Ireland as to what he thought would be a fair price to charge upon the tea consumed in that country, and the hon. Member replied that he could not answer the question off-hand, but it might be taken for certain that the poor Irish peasant generally drank a good tea and would not be put off with poor rubbish. Then he described to the House a deputation he had just received, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, from those interested in the tea trade. He said that at first they were reluctant to answer a question which he put as to whether they would like an ad valorem tax on tea. He said they did not give a definite answer at first, and simply told him it would be impossible to collect such a duty, but subsequently they begged of him, with all the emphasis at their command, not to do it. It is very rare that we on these benches, in these days, get such emphatic assistance from the Front Bench opposite, and I am quite prepared to leave the case with these valuable quotations from the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is rather amusing to hear a right hon. Gentleman opposite arguing from a Liberal

  445
  point of view against an ad valorem duty on tea. With one statement he made I cordially agree, it is not a novel proposal. I have heard it for a good many years, and I first heard it from the Liberal Benches. I remember a celebrated by-election which took place about the year 1890, in the Market Harborough Division of Leicestershire, and on that occasion a gentleman who I believe is now the Member for the Division, was standing as a Parliamentary candidate for the first time. He issued a celebrated election card in favour of ad valorem duties. I am sorry I have not a copy, but I remember its contents very well. It began like this: "What the Liberals propose to do." It pointed out the iniquity of the present system of duties which resulted in the rich man's champagne paying much less than the poor man's beer; the rich man's cigars paying so much less than the poor man's tobacco; while as to the rich man's tea, it stated that the poor man's tea paid something like 100 per cent. more, and it ended with these words:—
  "If you wish to right these wrongs, vote for the Liberal candidate."
  I think, curiously enough, that was the first year the Chancellor of the Exchequer first got into the House. Possibly he may have won his election on that cry twenty-four years ago. That, at any rate, is what the Liberals proposed to do twenty-four years ago, and it is what they are opposed to doing in the present year. The right hon. Gentleman could give us no better argument against the proposal than certain Departmental objections. If the Government really wished to give this amount of relief to the poor who drink tea in large quantities, they would quickly get over these Departmental objections. They have had in connection with the Budget to get over much bigger difficulties, or rather they have tried to get over them, than the Departmental objections which have been urged by the hon. Gentleman to-day. Then, it is said, and I think it is true, that the poor do not always drink the cheapest classes of tea. But, after all, on this principle of Liberal finance, why should we not give them an opportunity of drinking the cheapest tea that can be got? Why on earth continue this system which puts an ad valorem duty on the poor man's tea 50 or 60 per cent. or more than the duty on the expensive teas consumed by other classes? Only the other day the Chan-
  446
  cellor of the Exchequer went down to the South-East of London and said:—
  "What I want to do in my Budget is to tax the rich."
  That was on a Saturday. On the Monday he comes back and takes a penny off the Income Tax. If he has got too much, money, as no doubt he has, why did he not do something for the poor? The Market Harborough election was the first by-election in which I ever took part. I remember that the ad valorem duty on tea was specially argued in favour of by the Liberal candidate, and I now call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fulfil a pledge made twenty-four years ago by voting for the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise for the purpose of stating very briefly, but with perfect frankness, what the policy of the Labour Members will be upon this and upon a number of similar Amendments which are going to be moved on the Committee stage of this Bill. But, first of all, I want to say a word or two in regard to the merits of this particular proposal. I realise the difficulties of carrying out the idea which is embodied in the Amendment, and I think they were very well illustrated in the speech of the hon. Member who moved it, because the most striking feature of his observation was the manner in which he devoted his ability to suggesting a scheme by which this proposal could be carried through. Probably we should all agree that, theoretically, ad valorem duties are desirable, and that there are special commodities to which that principle can be applied without risking any serious economic disadvantages. But so far as I understand the application of this proposal to tea, the practical difficulties are almost insuperable. However, we shall refuse to support this Amendment, not because of the practical difficulties of embodying the idea in legislation, but for other very important reasons. When I spoke at some considerable length in Committee of Ways and Means on the general Budget, I said the Labour party welcomed heartily the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the taxation upon large incomes and upon large estates. I entered upon that occasion, as I have so often entered in this House, a protest against the continuance of the high proportion of taxation which is paid by working people of this country; and in announcing the policy the Labour Members are going to take upon this

  447
  Amendment, and upon Amendments to the Budget generally, I want emphatically to say that we do not in the slightest degree recede from the position the Labour party has always taken up upon this question of indirect taxation, and especially upon the question of taxation upon food.
  There are two ways of looking at this Finance Bill, and there are two lines along which we might go. We might consider every Amendment which is brought forward upon what may be called its particular merit, regardless of the wider issues involved. And then we might consider the matter as a whole. The choice we make determines the policy which we adopt, and the Labour party on this occasion are going to look at this question from the broad point of view, and that broad point of view which will determine our policy will be the consideration of the Finance Bill as a whole. I may say, in passing, that in deciding to adopt this policy, we have the authority of no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who, speaking a few years ago upon an Amendment which I myself moved for a reduction of the Tea Duty, which he refused to support, gave many other reasons for his refusal to support it. He said he could not take the responsibility upon himself, and, under the circumstances, he could not vote for a reduction of the taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to keep on unless he had an opportunity of presenting an alternative scheme as a whole. He had to take the Budget as a whole or leave it as a whole. That is what the Labour party propose to do upon this occasion. Broadly speaking, the purpose of this Finance Bill, apart from the reenactment of certain Customs and Excise Duties, is to increase the rates of Income Tax and to increase the Death Duties. The Labour party heartily support both these proposals, and we have advocated this method of raising the additional revenue that may be required, both in this House and in the country, for a good number of years. Therefore we are not going to be so false to the principles that we have advocated as to vote against these proposals when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the courage to make them and embody them in a Bill.
  But I want to give reasons of a rather more general character. It is not easy—
  448
  indeed, I think it is impossible—to consider the Amendment which is now before the Committee, apart from other Amendments which are on the Order Paper, dealing with the reduction of the Tea Duties, and I may say, in passing, that the variety of Amendments upon this subject shows that the Opposition has not a united policy in regard to it. The hon. Baronet who preceded me (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) referred to an election held long ago in which the question of ad valorem duties figured prominently. I would put this question to the hon. Member: Has he at any time during the past twenty-four years advocated ad valorem duties as a fiscal policy of general application? I do not believe he has. We have already had quoted in the course of this Debate the opinions of the financial Leader of the Tory party on this question, and he himself condemned it. I remember another occasion, subsequent to that mentioned by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when the right hon. Gentleman in terms almost as emphatic as those quoted denounced the proposal to levy the Tea Duty on a system of ad valorem duties. That is the point I want to put before the Committee, because it amply justifies the policy the Labour party are going to follow on the Committee stage of this Bill. I take it that the real purpose of the Amendment, as expressed by the hon. Gentleman who moved it, is to reduce the amount of taxation paid by the poorer part of our population.
  Mr. PETOindicated assent.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member nods assent. Then I put to him this question—having already pointed out that the variety of Amendments with regard to the Tea Duty put upon the Paper by Members of the Opposition show that they have no common or definite policy upon this question, for while the hon. Member advocates an ad valorem scale, others are proposing a simple reduction of the Tea Duty, and others are proposing Imperial preference—What is the Tory policy on this question? We have a right to put that question, and a right to a definite answer, an official answer and a responsible answer from the Tory party before we go into the Lobby to support an Amendment of a private Member, for which the Tory party, as a whole, will take no responsibility whatever. The hon. Gentleman said that he proposed this Amendment as a method of relieving the taxation of the

  449
  poorer part of the population. Is that the Tory policy? Is it the Tory policy to reduce not only the rate, but the total amount of the taxation which is paid by the working classes to-day? We must have an answer to that question. We know what the answer will be. Have we not been told for the last year or two that the policy of the Government during the last few years of raising a larger proportion of the national revenue from direct taxation and a smaller proportion from indirect taxation was a bad policy and a policy not approved of by the Opposition? No hon. Member opposite will have the courage to dispute the fact that the working classes of the country do, and always will, pay a larger part of the revenue which is raised by means of indirect taxation. Therefore, I ask if this Amendment is moved, and will other Amendments for the reduction be moved, as the beginning of a definite and official policy on the part of the Opposition to lessen the amount of taxation paid by the working community? Unless we get an answer to that question the Opposition has no right at all to expect our support for any such proposal as this.
  As a matter of fact, we know what the policy of the Opposition is upon this matter. We know it is not their policy to reduce the amount of indirect taxation. We know it is not their policy to lighten the burdens put upon the working people. Their policy is, and this is the real inwardness of the Tariff Reform Amendment, to broader the basis of taxation so that the amount of taxation which is paid by the well-to-do will be lessened and that the burden will remain heavier on the poorer people. If we were to support a proposal like this brought forward from the Opposition Benches, what we should be doing in reality would not be voting for the reduction of the amount of working-class taxation, but supporting a proposal which is not a real and honest proposal for the reduction of working-class taxation. What will happen if the party opposite should come into power? The hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) was very frank, but he was not very discreet, this afternoon, when he admitted that his purpose in moving the Amendment to the Instruction was really to turn out this Government.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I say, by way of personal explanation, that that is not at all what I said. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked me whether I would take
  450
  similar trouble to raise a point of Order if my own party were in power? In answering the right hon. Gentleman, I told him in the first place, to wait and see, and that secondly, it would be a consideration which might weigh with me, although incidentally, that it might have the effect also of turning out the Government.
  The CHAIRMAN: I thought what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) said would lead us back to something that is done with. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) was quite right in making a personal explanation, and I do not quarrel with him. I hope the hon. Member for Blackburn will not pursue the subject too far.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I will not do that. I was only going to refer to the matter in a sentence to lead up to another relevant point. I think I reproduced the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman much more accurately than he has done just now. He said he would be rendering a great service to the country if he could succeed in turning out this Government. I am not going to say that a great service might not be rendered to the country by turning out this Government, but I can say, with a great deal more assurance, that a very disastrous service would be rendered to the country by turning out this Government and putting in the Opposition. That is the possibility which we must keep in mind. I say that the real inwardness and purpose of this Amendment is not to lessen the amount of taxation paid by the working people, but to reshuffle indirect taxation. That is what will happen should the country ever suffer the misfortune of a Tariff Reform Government. I can quite believe that there will be a reduction of the Tea Duty and possibly the abolition of the Sugar Duty, but what will be substituted for them? People can live without tea. As a matter of fact, I think the people of this country drink far too much tea Sugar is more of a necessary, but people can live without sugar. What is it that the Opposition would substitute for a reduced Tea Duty and for the abolition of the Sugar Duty?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is raising a very big question, and I must ask him not to go beyond the particular Amendment now before us.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I shall bow to your ruling, Sir. I was only trying to point

  451
  out the real inwardness of this Amendment, and to give the reasons why we are not going to be drawn into the trap.
  Mr. PETO: Is the hon. Member in order in attributing to me, as the real inwardness of the Amendment, that which I specifically stated was not the purpose of the Amendment, and in continuing the Debate upon lines which I intentionally left out of my arguments for this specifical Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is, of course, entitled to make a revelant reply to the arguments and proposals of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), but I must ask him not to raise a wholly new issue which might well be the subject of a Debate on another occasion.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: My point is this: Supposing we were to vote for this Amendment and for the Amendments which are to be moved in Committee, what might be the result of our vote? It might be that we should destroy the Finance Bill, and destroy the possibilities of securing those increases in the Income Tax, Death Duties and the like which are proposed; and, what is more important, we should not get the money for certain services which we are anxious to see financed to a greater extent than they are financed at the present time. Those are the reasons why the Labour party will not support this Amendment, and will support no Amendment moved from the opposite side for the reduction of the Tea Duty, or of other indirect taxes. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by not giving the Grants to local authorities, had a surplus. If we were to support this Amendment, is he prepared to say that he would support a proposal for leaving the Income Tax at the figure originally proposed? If we could get an honest commitment on a question like that, the position might be altered. I know that some hon. Members opposite will attempt to make political capital out of the policy I have been putting before the Committee this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not in the least afraid of that. I know my own people in the country. I know something of their intelligence, and that they have the intelligence to understand Tory tactics. Therefore hon. Members opposite are perfectly at liberty to go down to my Constituency and say what
  452
  they like. My record on these questions is perfectly well known there, and so is the record of every one of my colleagues. The people will understand why we vote as we do. They will understand that why we are taking this course is because we want the additional money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to raise under this Finance Bill, and because we want to see these great social services subsidised to a much greater extent from national resources. That is the reason why we adopt this policy on this Finance Bill.
  Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Member who has just sat down tried, with his accustomed skill, to prove that any reduction of the taxation of the working classes is only honest when it proceeds from a Government that he keeps in office. I am not competent to answer the question he put as to the policy of the Tory party on this question. I should like to ask him a question: Is it right to keep in office a party which has piled tax upon tax on the working men, whose interests he is supposed to represent? If I were to proceed further on this line, I am afraid I should infringe those rides of order which it is my constant effort in life to observe. I should like to come close up with this proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) used the argument, for which everyone must have respect, that as the Income Tax is graduated, therefore the Tea Duty should be graduated. I cannot follow my hon. Friend in finding anything satisfactory in the present position of the Income Tax and its graduation, which has reduced the City to despair and the finances of the country to confusion. I am afraid my hon. Friend has slightly underrated the very strong objections which exist to his proposal for an ad valorem tax on account of the extreme difficulty there would be in carrying it out in the form he proposes. If an ad valorem tax is to be imposed, it would be far less disturbing to commercial interests if it were in the form of a 55 per cent. ad valorem duty than it would be on a graduated scale. He said that the tea brokers—he might have added the tea producers also—object to this proposal. That is very true. If he had consulted those gentlemen with delicate palates who taste tea without swallowing it in order to detect the difference between one kind and another, he will know it is exceedingly difficult for the

  453
  most expert tea-taster to fix the prices—in fact, they cannot do it. Whenever they endeavour to put a price on a certain class of tea, it frequently happens in the market afterwards that the valuation of the greatest expert is found to be as much as twopence or threepence out when the tea actually comes to be sold. I submit to my hon Friend, from whom I am sorry to differ, that he has not taken quite sufficiently into account the very practical effect of the tax which he proposes to introduce. Presuming that it could be valued exactly, as to which I express great doubt, on behalf of those who know what they are talking about, supposing the tea was valued at ll¾d., supposing it was close up to twelvepence in the opinion of the valuer, there would immediately be a very great difficulty, and those who were called upon to pay the tax might have a reasonable objection to raise against the valuation on which that tax rested, which is absent now when a flat rate of 5d. is imposed. Then I wish to represent to the Committee that the differences in a graduated scale like this are not really reflected in the price of the tea. That is a fact that anyone who has any practical acquaintance with the subject knows to be the case. I cannot exactly explain why it is, but I think it is on the whole, because people will not take a great deal of trouble over a very small profit. At any rate, that is the character of the British people. The middleman, the retail man and the consumer all seem to be of one mind in that respect.
  Then my hon. Friend's argument about people getting the poorer classes of tea was met by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench with a quotation from the speech of my right hon. Friend, which I submit is absolutely indisputable. He said that it is not necessarily such a disadvantage as it appears that they cannot get absolutely the cheapest class of tea. That is true, because the lowest priced tea is not the cheapest. In Russia, for instance, it is well known that the duty on tea is exceedingly high, and the people are the greatest tea-drinkers in the whole world. As they pay a higher price for tea than is paid in this country they use the tea-leaves over and over again. In an English cottage tea is made and the tea-leaves are thrown away. In a Russian cottage they are saved and used over and over again, and for a higher price the poor man gets less value for his
  454
  money than he would if he paid half the price for tea consisting of these rough cuttings which my hon. Friend justly said were no doubt resorted to for the purpose of making up these shilling canisters and other abnormal and, from the trade point of view, unjust packages of tea—I mean teas at prices which do not pay. If that is considered to be a strange statement to make, I would submit that it is perfectly well known that shilling canisters of tea were sold by companies like the Maypole and other wholesale companies, whose chief business was in margarine, at prices at which really did not pay those who sold them. If it is supposed that at present actually wood from the tea bush is used for making up the cheapest tea, I submit that there my hon. Friend rather overstated the case. I do not think they have yet come down to selling wood for tea.
  Of course I feel that in opposing this Amendment, anyone who wishes to see taxation lowered is in a difficult position. I am in the same position in that respect for the moment, but for very different reasons, as the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden). The hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) referred to the Harborough election. It does not come to my recollection exactly what occurred there, but I can remember the time when it occurred, when I myself was Vice-President of the Anti-Tea Duty League, and I believe that the policy then which found favour amongst those with whom I was associated, at any rate on these benches, was not to introduce an ad valorem scale like this or like the scale proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Cooper). There has never been, so far as I am aware, any considerable body of Members upon that side who favoured a reduction of the Tea Duty in the form in which my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) has put it forward. I wish I could support it. I should like to do anything to support any Amendment against the Government whose financing has reduced the country to confusion and has introduced the utmost waste and disorder. I would go any length I could, but I should be bound, if I voted, to vote against this Amendment on the ground that while it would not, I think, really benefit the poor, it would most certainly disorganise trade and would lead to infinite confusion. If you got off 2d., as you would under this scale, upon the lowest class of tea—and a vast amount of tea is priced under 9d.—and if you could keep

  455
  that 2d. off, there would then be very much to be said for the proposal in so far as regarded the reduction of 2d. on the cheapest class of tea. But I can see no chance whatever. No doubt if that could be taken off and kept off there would be a great advantage, I believe, to the poor and to the tea producers, and the tea consumers all round. But I see no prospect whatever of that. This taxation will no doubt be wanted, and there will be no prospect now of relief, because after the fate of the Budget there is no prospect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting together by any means that large accumulation which would enable him to take off these taxes in order to purchase votes at the next General Election. That he would do that if he could I firmly believe, but I think he will not be able to do it. I do not think in any way he will be able to carry out that policy. I do not believe that if 2d. were taken off the reduction could be maintained unless some extraordinary hopes are entertained of reducing our expenditure or bringing in other sources of revenue. For these reasons I shall be unable to support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think the hon. Member has shown a good deal of rough common sense in washing his hands of the Amendment. This principle of suggesting a graduation of the tax on great articles of food like this, which is becoming a hardy annual, deserves a few moments consideration. We ought to try and bear in mind the speech in which it was submitted to us. The hon. Member did not make one suggestion as to how the great difficulties which the Amendment would create could be overcome. How will he fix the price of tea at 9d. or 1s., or any other price which he suggests? We know the various methods to which he might have recourse, but they would be equally difficult, if not impossible. With regard to the other Amendment which is on the Paper for an ad valorem duty, when it comes to 55 per cent. we see that a great and important trade would be hopelessly demoralised in trying to fix any such price. How will it be done? Suppose the Customs fix the price—and said this tea is worth 3s. 4d. a pound, and it must pay 55 per cent. Suppose the Customs fix the price at 1s., and said, "You will have to pay a duty of 5d.," the greatest injustice might be done to the owner of this tea,
  456
  and the trade would be embarrassed. The hon. Member did not suggest any method of getting over these difficulties. He does not appear to know that everything which he suggests in this bad Amendment was the law in this country for perhaps a hundred years. Why did not the common sense of the people of England give up these ad valorem duties, especially on tea? Because they were found inimical to the interests of all classes of people. Very bad tea adulterated in every way was brought in to get the lower duty. There was no stimulus to produce good tea, and thus the greatest injury was done to the consumers in this country by the bad system which Parliament had gradually to abolish. Mr. Gladstone was the first great statesman who realised that a flat rate does not really present any objection which hon. Members appeared to attribute to it, but offers the greatest advantages. I suggest a moderate rate on articles of food, if there must be any taxation, and I should like to see it all abolished. Why is it that a moderate flat rate is the best in the interests of the people generally? It is because the people are interested in a good quality being brought in, and if you penalise the improvement of quality, as you do by a graduated tax, the people suffer. The growers are afraid to make experiments with a view to improving the standard generally, because they will be penalised and will have to pay a heavier tax, and bad food is presented to the people for consumption. That will be the effect so far as the public are concerned.
  Of course, if we look at it separately from the point of view of the trade, the greatest disorganisation would arise from any attempt to graduate the tax. For instance, to come to the point of 9d., at which the extra penny was to be charged, it would be better for an arrangement to be made by which the value should be raised to even 10d. a pound, because if it were sold at 9d. it would only cost 1s., whereas if it were sold at 9¾d. or 10d., with the 4d. duty it would cost 1s. 2d. So there would be a great inducement to fraud, and in every transaction above the lowest flat rate there would be a great temptation to a combination between buyer and seller to defraud the revenue, and the thing would be quite impracticable in working. That was why, when the hon. Member was asked to quote a country in which it was applied, he could only mention tobacco in France. That is a Gov-

  457
  ernment monopoly, and the Government there can do anything it likes with tobacco, and the public get a bad tobacco as a result. There is not free competition in tobacco in France at all, and I do not think the experience of that country with regard to that article would encourage this House to go on in the direction that the hon. Member suggests. The hon. Member says that if a low rate was adopted, a burden would be taken off the backs of the poor, but he did not argue that out. He did not show how the poor would benefit at all. He thought the poor would get tea at 3d. a pound duty instead of 4d. or 5d. That assumes that the most economical article for the poor to buy is this lowest quality which would come in at 3d., whereas, of course, it is much more economical to get better tea at even a slightly higher price. The hon. Member said that at present there is a scramble to push in tea of any quality at an even duty. Is there not a scramble to send in tea, no matter how good or how bad it is, at 5d. per pound duty? The hon. Member himself would create a scramble. What he proposes would give a premium on bad qualities of tea. It would give a check to experiments in the growth of that most important food for the people, and there would be other bad results which I do not think I need elaborate at any great length to the Committee.
  The hon. Member based his appeal in support of the Amendment on the fact that there is a graduation of the Income Tax. There is no relevancy between the Income Tax and the Tea Duty. In the case of the Income Tax there is no commodity at stake, but tea is a great article of food in every home. I think that the graduation, even of the Income Tax, may be carried too far, and I am glad that there is some prospect of an inquiry into the whole question. The more simple the Tea Duty can be kept the better an instrument of revenue it will remain. I cannot sit down without referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). It would not be fitting and respectful to speak on all these Amendments to-day, and one may as well take the opportunity of saying what he has to say in the fewest words possible on this Amendment. If this were a proposal to reduce the tax upon tea, and if we could give effect to it in a practical way, I would be glad to give attention to it. I am one of the supporters of the Government who have kept loyal to them while the present
  458
  heavy tax remained by the assurance they give from year to year that we must take a broad view of the situation, and leave it to the Government to reduce the tax as soon as they can. I would be glad to see a reduction of the Tea Duty as soon as possible if it could be done, but the reduction must not upset the flat rate. If a reduction could only be secured by making one of the experiments in regard to the establishment of an ad valorem rate, or a rate which would penalise tea from China, which is an excellent quality of tea, I believe that the game would not be worth the candle, and that it would be better to leave it where it is. I hope the Government will take into consideration the necessity of the trade and try to bring the Tea Duty back to fourpence. That would give a relief which would be greatly welcomed by the trade generally, and certainly by the supporters of the Government in this House.
  Viscount WOLMER: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). We always listen with interest to his speeches, and one of the reasons for that is that he is, usually candid. I think he was not quite so candid to the House as usual. He told us that he and his Friends are going to vote against all these Amendments with respect to the Tea Duty, because, in his opinion, if they were carried, the Finance Bill would be jeopardised—in fact defeated—and that was a contingency which the Labour party could not agree to under any circumstances whatever. But what has been the attitude of the Labour party? Did they vote for the Bill on the Second Reading? They did not vote for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was no Division!"] The objection of the hon. Member is a purely technical one. We on this side moved the rejection of the Bill by a reasoned Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] A reasoned Amendment was moved on the Second Reading of the Bill, and if that had been carried the Bill would have been rejected. If hon. Members opposite were really anxious to attack the Bill, their course would have been to have voted for that Amendment. I think, therefore, we are forced to the conclusion that the attitude of the whole of the Labour party as to the Finance Bill is, to say the least of it, exceedingly lukewarm. It is not merely the fate of the Finance Bill they have in mind; it is the fate of the

  459
  Government. It is the policy of the Labour party to support the Government at all costs. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Blackburn and his Friends voting against this Amendment if they think it a bad one, but I think that what we can protest against is their saying What they approve of a particular Amendment, or that they approve of the principle on which a particular Amendment is based, but are not prepared to vote for it, and must vote against it, otherwise the fortunes of the Liberal Government would be in jeopardy.
  Of course, they are perfectly free to support the Government at all costs if they want to do so, but I think that their constituents and supporters in the country should realise the fact that the independence of the Labour party does not exist at all, and that they are servile followers of the present Liberal Ministry. The hon. Member for Blackburn also objected to the Amendment on the ground that my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) was not sincere in moving it. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I apologise if I have misrepresented the hon. Member. If I understood him aright, he accused the Tory party of insincerity on this subject. I do not know whether my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) pledged himself in favour of a reduction of the Tea Duty or not, but I am certain that the Members of the Labour party did. I could read to the House, if they dispute that fact, the pledges they gave in their election addresses, and also on the platform, that they would on all occasions vote against food taxes. This is one of the food taxes. That being the case I do not think it lies in the mouth of Members of the Labour party to accuse us of insincerity. If my hon. Friend did pledge himself to vote in favour of a reduction of the Tea Duty, he is carrying out that pledge this evening, and hon. Members opposite are repudiating their pledges by voting against the Amendment in order to keep the Liberal Government in office. Therefore, while we frankly admit the absolute right of Members of the Labour party to vote in favour of food taxes to their heart's content, and to vote with the utmost obedience and regularity in support of the Liberal Ministry, we claim that that disentitles them to pose as the Independent Labour party. If they do so, they are making a fraudulent pretence in seeking the suffrages of the electors at an election.
  Mr. SANDYS: Although a great deal of criticism has been directed to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, there are one or two additional observations I wish to make with regard to the policy of the Labour party in respect of this particular proposal. First of all, the hon. Member had no ground whatever for the suggestion he made that the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) was not an honest proposal. [An HON. MEMBER: "He never said anything of the sort."] I think the hon. Member did use that expression, and when he refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will find that I am right. He laid down the policy which should guide the Labour party with regard to this particular Amendment. He emphasised the administrative difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) has referred. The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that when any innovation is going to be introduced which may be attended with inconvenience to the Government there are always administrative difficulties which may come in the way. I think if the hon. Member had no other reason to lead him and his party to vote against the Amendment, he would not have been inclined to support the argument in regard to the difficulties of administration in connection with this proposal. One remarkable point made by the hon. Member was that the Labour party did not in the least degree recede from the attitude they had taken up on this question for a great many years past. I well remember a speech made by the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) during the course of a similar Debate last year, in which he quoted word for word from the election addresses of a large number of Members of the Labour party, showing that they gave specific promises to those whom they represent that when they came to this House they would vote for a reduction of the Tea Duty.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Did any Member of the Labour party pledge himself to support the Tory party?
  Mr. SANDYS: I really think that was an interruption which was hardly worthy of the hon. Member. He perfectly well remembers the speech which was made on that occasion, and no attempt was made by any Member of the Labour party to dispute the accuracy of the quotations containing the election pledges given by his hon. Friends. What the hon. Member

  461
  now says—and I think it is rather a new light—is that it is impossible for him and his Friends to consider particular Amendments on their merits. What he regards are the broad issues at stake in the whole of the Finance Bill. If that is so, and if Amendments are not going to be considered in the Committee stage, what is the object of having a Committee stage at all? The hon. Member's argument seems to me to be completely destructive of the method in which this House has dealt with legislation in the past. He said he could not support the Amendment because he was in favour of an increase in the Income Tax and the Death Duties. He is not prepared to assist the poor. All he desires to do is to injure the rich. I do not think I have misrepresented the reasons given by the hon. Member with regard to the policy which his party were going to pursue. May I suggest that there was another reason, admirably stated in a speech by the hon. Member himself, which was reported in the "Christian Commonwealth" of 22nd April this year? I hope the hon. Member will interrupt me if the quotation which I am going to read is in any way incorrect:
  "Mr. Philip Snowden, Labour M.P., Blackburn, said his colleagues would not deny that there is hardly ever a meeting of the Labour Members in the House which does not minutely examine every Resolution to be discussed, to see whether it is likely that the Tory party will support it. They never discuss the question in the party meetings as to how they shall vote upon a particular proposal. The question that dominates all others in those meetings is, 'Will it be safe to do it?'"
  When the hon. Member was in a franker mood he portrayed with great accuracy what I was endeavouring to describe, namely, the motives which very often influence the party to which he belongs. The paragraph continues:—
  "He told the Conference that on one occasion a discussion was to take place upon a Labour Amendment. The Labour Whip came in at the eleventh hour to say that the Liberal Whip had informed him that he had not got a sufficient number of men in the House to carry the Division, and feared that the Tories would vote for the Labour Amendment. It was therefore decided to move the adjournment of the Debate in order to allow the Liberal Whip to get sufficient men to defeat the Labour Amendment. The Debate was adjourned, and the Labour Amendment, by the connivance of the Labour party, was later defeated."
  8.0 P.M.
  The hon. Member does not seem to disagree with that account of his speech. It seems to me that on that occasion the hon. Member indicated more clearly the real motives which guide the conduct of the Labour party in these delicate matters than he did in his speech to the House this afternoon. I certainly desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I was
  462
  not particularly impressed by the difficulties which the right hon Gentleman suggested lay in the way of this proposal. I certainly think that, if effect were given to such a suggestion, it would have a very beneficial effect upon the working classes of this country, and would enable them to obtain at a lower price a better class of tea than they can obtain at the present time. For these reasons, and because he is justified in saying that the policy generally of the party to which we belong is to do everything which we can to reduce the cost of living to the working classes of this country, I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BARNES: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, like the prophet of old, must be disposed to say, Oh that mine adversary hath written an article! I do not know that he sticks to all the words that have been quoted from the article in question, which has not been read to the House. For my part, I do not see what is the matter with it, and I do not see in what respect it is inconsistent with the speech which was made a little while ago by my hon. Friend. However, he is quite able to look after himself, and therefore I may leave him and say a few words upon the speeches to which we have been treated by the Noble Lord and the last speaker. From what I can gather the gravamen of the charge brought against us is that we voted in such a way as to keep the Liberal Government in office. I venture to put that the other way about, and say that the gravamen of the charge against us is that we have voted to keep the Tories out of office. My simple comment upon that is we should be fools if we voted otherwise. My mind is easily made up with regard to the Amendment now before the House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—I did not hear the whole of his speech, but have no doubt that he put our case much more forcibly than I could do—I may say that we are going to vote on this Amendment and all other Amendments with our eyes not only upon the particular Amendment, but upon the whole political situation. I submit that that is a common-sense position to take up. We have been over eight years in this House, and during the major portion of that time, or, at all events, during the last two or three years, we have been burdened with certain questions which have more or less blocked the way of social and political reform during the last twenty or thirty years. We now

  463
  have a chance, under the cumbersome provisions of the Parliament Act—which has been too much lauded from my point of view, because it involves too great a delay in passing laws under its provisions—to get certain measures through. Cumbersome as is that Parliament Act, we have at all events now an opportunity, under its provisions, of clearing the political board by passing certain measures of which we are in favour, such as the Home Rule Bill and—
  The CHAIRMAN: A general review of the political situation does not come within the Amendment to which the hon. Member is speaking.
  Mr. BARNES: I will leave that, but I thought that I should be justified in saying something of the reasons why we are going to vote against this amendment, seeing that those reasons have reference to all the matters in question which the Government are pledged to carry into effect. But leave out the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and other proposals of which we are entirely in favour, and let us come to the Budget. Here again we should be fools and false to our constituents, if we voted upon a single Amendment, no matter how good that Amendment may be, upon its merits, in the strict and narrow sense of the word, if, by voting for it, we wrecked the Budget which, on the whole, gives effect to principles which we have long advocated. That puts our position in a nutshell. The Noble Lord has twitted us with certain declarations which we have made in election addresses and on platforms. I do not know whether he has got me on that list or not, but I am not very much concerned if he has. Inconsistency is to my mind a very minor cause of offence in politicians. I make that observation in all sincerity. I may have said sometime that I would vote against the Tea Duty. I do not believe that I did. I invite the Noble Lord to put me in the box if he can.
  Viscount WOLMER: As the hon. Member has challenged me directly on the point, and he might like an opportunity of replying, I think that I can read to the hon. Member a quotation from a speech which he made last year, which I think still holds good. On 7th May, 1913, the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said:—
  "I look back upon the last few years, during which we have been promised the abolition of these indirect
  464
  taxes, and I think that the time has come to put some of these professions into practice. The Tea Duty is one of the most iniquitous and unjust forms of indirect taxation, because it bears particularly hardly on the poorest of the poor."
  Mr. BARNES: I endorse every single word that has just been read. I am somewhat proud of the fact that I should put that so well as I appear to have done on that occasion. But the Noble Lord just stopped short of something that I thought possibly he might be going to say. He has not said that I was going to vote in favour of an Amendment like this. I believe that if he looked a little further into that book he would have put me a little more deeply into the box, because I have said, and I am going to stick to it, that I would cast no vote in favour of maintaining the present Tea Duty as against any proposition to reduce it from the flat rate of 5d. or 6d. to something else, and, if the Noble Lord wants really to put me in the wrong box, let him bring forward a proposition of that sort and see what I shall do. I make no promise. But I might be in a little more awkward position than I am now. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between what I have said as quoted, or in what might be quoted, and my voting against this Amendment as I am going to do, because there are those practical objections against this Amendment, even on its merits, which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington. He tells the House, with the practical knowledge which he possesses, that effect would not be given to the objects which the hon. Member has in mind by adopting this Amendment, but that the poor would probably still have to pay the 4d., and possibly have to pay the 5d., upon the tea which they would buy. Therefore, on the merits of this particular Amendment, I do not think that I am in any way pledged by my previous declaration to vote in its favour. The Noble Lord can tell my Constituents, even if he wishes to quote anything stronger still than what he has now quoted, that I shall still vote against this Amendment, and in favour, as he would say, of the Liberal Government, but, as I would say, against the tactics of the Tory party. I would still vote against this Amendment because I want the Budget, and every part of the Budget, because I know that in the Budget there are proposals in regard to housing, public health, proper provision for child life, and for drawing on the sources of

  465
  taxation possessed by those who are best able to bear it, and I prefer to consider the Budget as a whole rather than any particular Amendment on any single point such as this.
  Mr. E. WOOD: I should not have risen but for the last remark of the hon. Member. He said that the reason why he is not going to support this Amendment is because he desires the Budget on the ground that it draws Income Tax from those who are best able to bear it. This Amendment is not a simple question of reducing the duty on tea as such. What we are really discussing is whether the surplus money in the hands of the Chancellor should be applied in reduction of the Tea Duty or in reduction of Income Tax. I confess that it seems to me an amazing position for the hon. Member to take up, in one and the same breath to say that he supports the Budget because it draws money from wealthy people and that at the same time he is prepared to vote against a provision that might have the effect of diverting the surplus from the relief of the wealthy to the relief of the poor.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is the hon. Member's proposition to the Committee not to give temporary Grants to local authorities, but to reduce the Tea Duty?
  Mr. WOOD: I have made no proposition as yet. If the right hon. Gentleman waits, I shall be prepared to make one. What I say is that it appears to me to be inconsistent that the hon. Member who supports the Budget on the ground that it gives relief to the poor and draws from the pockets of the wealthy should be prepared to support the reduction of the Income Tax rather than the reduction of the Tea Duty. My answer to the Chancellor is that he has between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 with which he is able to remit taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman will come down with a firm proposal that he is prepared to take a penny off tea, which would be something like £1,000,000, then I will be prepared by my vote to show him how I will regard his proposal.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].—(By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I do not think I need occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes. I have an Amendment on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, and the question which prompted my putting it down has now become the subject of negotiations, between the parties on whose behalf I am acting and the company's representatives. Those negotiations are still proceeding, and therefore, I am anxious that nothing shall be done or said tonight to prejudice those negotiations or to aggravate the feeling between the parties. I am hopeful that the pursuance of the negotiations will result in a satisfactory accommodation being effected. Before resuming my seat, I would pray the indulgence of hon. Members while I make a personal explanation. A statement was issued by the promoters of the Bill which contains the following:—
  "The Member for Norwich is acting on behalf of the 'Daily Citizen.'"
  That would almost make it appear that I am using my Parliamentary position for the purpose, of promoting the interests with which I am politically indentified. I would not like the House to consider that I have intentionally placed myself in that position, because, as a matter of fact, I have been acting, so far as my knowledge goes, on behalf of a large group of newspaper people in Manchester. As I have stated, some little approach has been made on the matter with which I am concerned in connection with the Bill, and I am not without hope that a satisfactory settlement may ultimately be attained. I am fully seised with the responsibility of doing nothing in this House to delay the passage of Bills of this character. I would not like to lay myself open to the charge of having captiously protracted the proceedings of a Bill of this kind in this House, a Bill which contemplates the expenditure of about £600,000, and also implying some considerable developments in different parts of the country, and incidentally, of course, the employment of some additional labour. I thought that I might be permitted to make that state-

  467
  merit in order to prove that it was not in any light spirit that I put down the Amendment which is on the Paper, and which I do not propose to move.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I am sorry that I shall have to detain the House at some considerable length on a matter of immense importance, arising out of this Bill, to the mining industry of the country, owing to the recent decision given in the House of Lords on a technical point, which has caused the railway companies to serve notices on nearly all the colliery companies of this country to discontinue working in or about or near the railway lines. Under Clause 30 of the Bill of this railway company they prescribe the distance, within which, under the Railways Consolidation Act of 1845, minerals shall be worked, as at from 130 yards to 160 yards in width, instead of forty yards as prescribed under the Act of 1845. I would first briefly state to the House the position which has arisen. In the recent case, decided by the House of Lords, of the London and North Western Railway Company v. the Howley Park Company, the railway company sought to prevent the colliery company from working within a distance of forty yards from the railway line, under the Act of 1845. They were working a mine and approaching within forty yards of the railway, but the colliery company had to give notice to the railway company under the provisions of Sections 78 and 79 of the Act of 1845. Clause 30 of the present Bill refers to Section 78, and I will show to the House the manner in which the railway companies have endeavoured to meet the objections which have been raised on this point, and, have wholly failed to meet them. It is very difficult in a technical matter of this kind to explain it to the House. But if hon. Members take the floor of the House from end to end, and treat it as the railway, then, under the present law, the minerals cannot be worked to within a distance of forty yards on either side of the railway. That width of land is practically left to support the railway. For a period of seventy years the railway companies have always, when it came to working the mines within forty yards, either bought up the minerals or allowed the owners to work them, not only within the forty yards, but under the central portion which constitutes the permanent line. This has
  468
  been done practically in nearly every case, and, in point of fact, no damage whatever has been done while the minerals were being extracted. I must state that it has been practically invariable for railway companies to allow the owners of minerals to extract those minerals in the manner I have described.
  In the Howley Park case the question of a tunnel arose, and no doubt it would have been dangerous to have worked the mine in that case, because the extraction of the coal underneath the tunnel might have caused subsidences or cracks which would have been dangerous, not only to the mineral traffic, but to the general traffic passing over the railway. The case came before the House of Lords, and that tribunal arrived at the decision that not only were the company entitled to the support of their railway but they were entitled to support outside the forty yards; that they were entitled, in fact, in common law, to support, inasmuch as if the mines had been extended 300 yards on either side, if the workings of the mine lowered the surface, and the surface of the line at all, notwithstanding the railway company could claim support—and this claim was upheld in the House of Lords. No compensation was offered to be paid to the owners of mines or the owner of the minerals. In fact it means in future that the railway company buys the land necessary for the making of their railway. They acquire a distance of 20 yards wide on which the permanent way and fences are erected. The railway company have for that line paid certain sums of money, and this House knows that is the market value of the land plus 10 per cent. In Railway Bill No. 4, the value of the land can be put down at £20 an acre. The owners of that land would be entitled to £20 plus 10 per cent. and also for severance damages, and the House will hardly believe me when I say that in respect of that acre of land for which the railway company has paid, it may be £25 or £50, they claim that thirty acres shall be left for the support of that acre, and for which the railway company has not paid a single penny. The intention of Parliament in 1845 was to protect the owners of property and those persons working mines from damage caused to their property by the railway company making a line. Parliament was generous to the railway companies in this sense, that no sum was to be paid in respect of the purchase of the minerals at the time

  469
  the land was acquired, but that when the working of the mine approached at or near the railway, then the railway company, and then only, paid for the mines if it was found necessary for them to do so. The railway companies claimed not only that they should be free from paying for the minerals underlying their own line, but in the forty yards limit as well, and now they are claiming that 500 yards of coal, or 250 yards on each side of the line, shall be left to support the line without any compensation being paid in respect of that. It may, and probably will, be argued that the coal under the line comes within the provisions of the Act of 1845. It being impracticable to work the coal under the line and leave the rest, I think it follows that the companies are using a technical finding of the House of Lords to levy what is nothing more or less than legal blackmail on the whole of the district. For years past, whenever the workings of the mine approached within forty yards, they have not only given notice to the colliery companies to leave the coal outside of the forty yards, but they have paid compensation outside the forty yards for such coal as has been left. Section 77 of the Act, relating to the acquisition of minerals by railway companies, provides with respect to mines lying in or near a railway as follows:—
  "The company shall not be entitled to any mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals under any land purchased by them, except only such parts thereof as shall be necessary to be dug or carried away or used in the construction of the works, unless the same shall have been expressly purchased; and all such mines, excepting as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be excepted out of the conveyance of such lands, unless they shall have been expressly named therein and conveyed thereby."
  That Clause means that where a railway company purchases land, unless the minerals are actually conveyed to them the minerals remain vested in the owners of the land adjoining. Section 78 of the Act of 1845, which is the Section in dispute in this Bill, reads in the marginal note as follows:—
  "Mines lying near the railway not to be worked if the company willing to purchase them."
  The Section continues:—
  "If the owner, lessee, or occupier of any mines or minerals lying under the railway or any of the works connected
  470
  therewith, or within, prescribed distance, or, where no distance shall be presented; forty yards therefrom, be desirous of working the same, such owner, lessee, or occupier shall give to the company notice in writing of his intention so to do, thirty days before the commencement of working; and upon the receipt of such notice it shall be lawful for the company to cause such mines to be inspected by any person appointed by them for the purpose; and if it appear to the company that the working of such mines or minerals is likely to damage the works of the railway, and if the company be willing to make compensation for such mines or any part thereof to such owner, lessee, or occupier, do not agree as to the amount of such compensation, the same shall be settled as in other cases of disputed compensation."
  The marginal note of Section 79 reads:—
  "If company unwilling to purchase owner may work the mines."
  The Section continues:—
  "If before the expiration of such thirty days the company do not state their willingness to treat with such owner, lessee, or occupier for the payment of such compensation, it shall be lawful for him to work the said mines or any part thereof for which the company shall not have agreed to pay compensation, so that the same be done in a manner proper and necessary for the beneficial working thereof, and according to the usual manner of working such mines in the district where the same shall be situate; and if any damage or obstruction be occasioned to the railway or works by improper working of such mines, the same shall be forthwith repaired or removed, as the case may require, and such damage made good by the owner, lessee, or occupier of such mines or minerals, and at his own expense; and if such repair or removal be not forthwith done, or, if the company shall so think fit, without waiting for the same to be done, by such owner, lessee, or occupier, it shall be lawful for the company to execute the same, and recover from such owner, lessee, or occupier the expense occasioned thereby, by action in any of the Superior Courts."
  Section 81 provides: "The company shall from time to time pay to the owner, lessee, or occupier of any such mines extending so as to lie on both sides of

  471
  the railway all such additional expenses and losses as shall be incurred by such owner, lessee, or occupier by reason of the severance of lands lying over such mines by the railway, or of the continuous working of such mines being interrupted as aforesaid, or by reason of the same being worked in such manner and under such restrictions as not to prejudice or injure the railway, and for any minerals not purchased by the company which cannot be obtained by reason of making and maintaining the railway; and if any dispute or question shall arise between the company and such owner, lessee, or occupier as aforesaid, touching the amount of such losses or expenses, the same shall be settled by arbitration."
  The position is this. The conditions which applied to mining seventy years ago are wholly different from those which apply to-day. Seventy years ago the mines in this country were worked at a very shallow depth, when Parliament enacted that forty yards should be left. Instead of a depth of 50 or 100 yards which then prevailed we now have depths of from 800 to 1,000 yards. The railway companies having obtained that decision in the Howley Park case, to the consternation of the mining community, not only in England but in Wales and elsewhere, served notice on hundreds of colliery companies, threatening them with injunctions unless they forthwith discontinue working at or near railways, and claiming in effect support from their lines for which they are not going to pay one farthing to the owner, occupier or working lessee from the land and minerals so acquired. It was never the intention of Parliament, as I have shown by the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, that the company should buy 1 acre of land, and should acquire 30 acres to support that acre, or that for a distance of 242 yards by 20 yards wide, 600 yards of minerals should be left intact to support that 20 yards of width, without the railway company paying a farthing to the owners for interrupting the working of that portion. On the strength of a mere technical point of law the railway companies are calling upon working lessees and owners of mines to agree to a form of blackmail, inasmuch as the owners of mines are practically to withdraw any claims they may have against the railway companies in
  472
  respect of other matters wholly irrelevant to this question. The railway companies are using this lever to blackmail the largest industry in the country. "Blackmail" is a strong word, but I consider that it is none too strong for the facts of the case. Here are railway companies who know perfectly well the law under which Parliament granted them permission to make railways, although the conditions have changed, have taken no single step to bring themselves into general conformity with the law as it has always been held to be for the last seventy years, but base themselves purely on a technical case decided in the House of Lords. To show how extraordinary the position is in respect to this great industry of mining, I may point out that there has been no law passed in respect to the mining industry for many years. There have been many Acts of Parliament in regard to labour questions, but the recommendations of Royal Commissions in regard to the conditions under which the leases of mines are held have always been ignored by Parliament. Parliament has not had time to deal with cases of this kind, which no doubt it would have dealt with if they had been brought before its notice. The House of Lords threw the whole question of mining into the melting pot by another decision not long ago. They held in the case of Bishop Auckland v. Butterknowle that no lessee or owner of a mine was entitled to let down the surface unless there was an express provision permitting them so to do.
  Sir WILLIAM BEALEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The House of Lords held in effect that unless there was an actual clause giving the right, or—accepting the hon. Baronet's correction—unless the right were implied, a person working a mine had no right to let down the surface at all. It is impossible to work a mine without letting down the surface. If you extract five feet of coal the surface subsides about three feet. As a general rule the surface subsides about two-thirds of the depth of the coal extracted. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. P. Beale) says that where there is an implied right the Courts have held that the House of Lords decision does not apply. I have been very intimately associated with this particular case. Though large sums of money had been paid in advance for

  473
  coal, after the decision of the House of Lords the owner of the property said, "Under the decision of the House of Lords, although you have paid for all the coal, you are not entitled to let down the surface. Therefore, you must pay over again." When the matter was taken into Court the judge said that it was such a monstrous case that if he could find any loophole to put the claimant out of Court he would do so. Having regard to the fact that a pillar had been left for support, the learned judge stretched the law and gave a decision in favour of my company. I quote that case because the decision of the House of Lords there makes every mining agreement in the whole of the United Kingdom absolutely worthless. Unless this right is implied, all the leases are worthless, and the people have to pay over again for what they have already paid. That is not honest dealing, nor is it what the Legislature intended. In Railway No. 4 the minerals have been acquired by a German syndicate who are shortly to work the mines in the parish of Styrrup. In the Bill a distance of 150 yards is prescribed, owing, I suppose, to the solicitor of the landlord having put pressure on the railway company. But in point of fact that prescribed distance of 150 yards is absolutely worthless, because I have from the same railway company an intimation that they require not 150 yards, but 600 yards to be left for the support of their line. I ask the House whether it is reasonable, when railway companies are coming to Parliament, as they have to do, year by year to obtain sanction for the building of railways, that they should use a technical point which is outside all questions of common honesty in order to evade their obligations and defeat the intention of Parliament? The intention of Parliament is perfectly clear, and the railway companies by taking this action are placing themselves in a position which no honourable body of men ought to occupy. They have their legal rights just as all other people have, but they have no right to be paid twice over for minerals.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER(Mr. Maclean): The hon. Baronet seems to be urging grounds for the amendment of the general law. His remarks do not seem to be relevant to the particular railway company whose Bill is now before the House.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was at that particular moment referring to Railway Bill
  474
  No. 4, where the prescribed distance is given as 150 yards, and I was showing to the House that this Clause was absolutely valueless to protect the interests of the people with whose property the railway is going to deal. Surely I am in order, in the provision of powers in a Bill submitted to Parliament, where there is a prescribed distance placed within the Bill, in pointing out that it is wholly insufficient to meet the exigencies of the case, and that in point of fact this 150 yards—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I did not quite recognise the point because of the somewhat long introduction which the hon. Baronet had given to the House.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I must apologise for the very long introduction, but the matter is a very difficult and complicated one, and it is somewhat difficult to make it plain to the House. It is only because of the enormous importance attaching to the matter to those like myself who are connected with one of the largest industries in this country, that I have thought it right to deal at some length with a point which has become acute, inasmuch as the railway companies have only started to send out these notices within the last week or ten days. I believe in Lancashire the railway companies served the notices some few weeks ago; but these notices that I refer to have only in shoals tumbled into my office last week or the week before. I say that the North-Eastern Railway Company and the others concerned are not entitled to come to Parliament and ask that 150 yards should be left in support of these lines, when the North-Eastern engineers are asking that where the mine is 300, 400, 500, or up to 1,000 yards deep, that a similar number of yards should be left for the support of the railway on each side, I should not say on either side, but for the double width. The owners of property have misconceived what the real facts are in regard to the 150 yards. If the railway companies are entitled to say, by a decision of the House of Lords, that the natural support outside of the 40 yards should be left, I fail to see why under Clause 30 they cannot say the same thing for the 150 yards. The owners of property, therefore, are in no better position. I am rather glad that the hon. Member near to me seems to share that opinion. I believe that as one of the solicitors, or a member of the firm that is connected with—
  Sir W. BEALE: I have not been a member of any firm.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: This, then, is the case briefly stated. The President of the Board of Trade has a very grave responsibility in this matter. Never on any previous occasion have I blocked a railway Bill. I have always thought that it was wrong to dispute small matters on the Second Reading of railway Bills, and that it was the duty of Parliament where large sums of money were being spent to provide labour, and facilities for more railways, that every facility should be given by Parliament for these Bills to go through. But here is a question of principle involved. Here you have a case where the railway companies are availing themselves of a technical advantage, and are seeking to destroy the real intention of Parliament expressed in the Railway Clauses Act 1845. I ask the hon. Member if he is going to follow me, to justify this fact, that a railway company which buys an acre of land for which the directors pay £50, shall be entitled to claim thirty acres in support of that one acre, and that 360,000 tons of coal should be left in that thirty acres, and not a penny paid to the owner or the lessees of these minerals; that the railway company should in fact have land representing thousands of tons of coal, for which in fact they have paid only a few pounds. My contention is, as I have already stated to the House, that this position of the railway companies is not a proper one. If the railway companies had had the good sense to approach this question from the standpoint of common honour and justice, I should not be attacking them here to-night. It is the first time since I have been a Member of this House that I have ever attacked a railway company or any other person in the interests of employers of labour. But here is a case which will not only cause immense loss to the owners and lessees of property, but also will cause great dislocation in the working of the mines, thus displacing labour. That point cannot be contradicted, because I already know cases where it has been necessary to stop men working in certain districts.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The companies have arranged with the landowners!
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord seems to overlook the fact of the prescribed distance in the Act. Some of
  476
  those concerned in this matter do not know what they are talking about. I do. I tell the House that the engineers of the railway company are asking that where the mine is 600 yards deep, 600 yards shall be left to support the line. That is what the engineers of these railway companies are asking from the owners of these properties. The Act of 1845 authorises 40 yards, and I suppose the same conditions will apply to the 150 yards. If the House of Lords' decision is to be taken, and if the railway company is entitled to the support suggested, they will be entitled equally to the larger as to the smaller number of the yards. One of the most eminent mining solicitors in the country told me that this protection, if put in for the owners of property in Clause 30, will be wholly fallacious, and in no way will help owners of property or their lessees to overcome the difficulties in which they have been placed by the action of the railway company.
  I am going to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. I do not want to divide the House. I have always believed that the right hon. Gentleman is a gentleman with very good common sense. I am perfectly prepared, having stated my case, to leave the matter in his hands and those of his advisers. I am perfectly prepared, if he will give me his assurance that he will give the matter his careful attention, having regard to the enormous importance of the interests involved—for I do not think the House has any idea of the immensity of the issues to the whole mining community—that I shall be satisfied to leave the matter for the moment. I know it will be said "You are a well-to-do coalowner, and you can very well take care of yourself." That is always the natural inclination of the House against any employer of labour who brings forwards matters of this sort in the House. But here you have a complicated technical matter, and I thought it my duty, having a knowledge of these facts, and being a mining engineer myself, to speak from my own knowledge of what the action of the railway companies has been. When the Bill gets into Committee I would like the President of the Board of Trade, if he will, to make a report to the Committee dealing with the points that I have raised, and if he thinks I have made out a good case which requires looking into, that the father of the Board of Trade should protect the industry from the attacks made by the railway companies, who in this case

  477
  have no regard whatsoever for the intentions of Parliament. If he does this I shall be satisfied. If, on the other hand, the railway companies are going to persist in the conduct which they have pursued during the last week and during the last month in Lancashire and in South Wales, though I do not wish to threaten anyone, they will find that in this House there is an overwhelming majority in favour of bringing the railway companies to their proper position, and seeing that they will pay some regard, at all events, to the expressed wish and intention of Parliament.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a general question, and I would ask the hon. Baronet to abstain from pursuing it further.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am sorry for having gone outside your ruling, and, in conclusion, I only say I earnestly trust that the President of the Board of Trade will not regard this matter lightly. It is a matter which to the mining industry is of immense importance, and I hope he will give careful consideration to the whole question. He will have an opportunity, I believe next week, of receiving a deputation from different parts of the country on the question, and I am sure he will study this matter, and that he will feel it his duty to send to the Committee a report upon this matter on the basis which Parliament originally decreed.
  9.0 P.M.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House is a distinguished mining engineer, and has technical and commercial knowledge of the subject upon which he has addressed the House this evening. Beyond that he is seised of great local knowledge of the district through which this particular railway happens to run, and both from his own knowledge and his technical experience, he has used this particular opportunity, quite properly in my judgment, to point a moral and adorn a tale, which is that in his view Clauses 71 to 78 of the Act of 1845 are in the light of modern mining engineering somewhat archaic. Their application is in his judgment absurd, and as mining has changed to a considerable extent in the intervenng period from 1845 to the present day, he thinks this is the opportunity for the general law being revised and brought up to date in its application as to the number of yards within where a mining company shall, or shall
  478
  not, be allowed to work its mines, and that there should be reconsideration of the reasons in the Act of 1845 for a railway company either insisting on the original 40 yards, or justifying still further than they have done the increase in that yardage from 40 to 130 or 150 and in some cases to 200 yards. He is perfectly within his right. Although he has not presented a Petition against this Bill in this House, nor have the mining association on whose behalf he properly claims to speak, still, as a Member of Parliament, he is properly within his right in bringing this subject before the House of Commons. He referred to Clause 30 of this particular Bill, and he referred to certain property through which the railway company run. He forgot to mention—and I supply the deficiency—that the distance of 130 and 150 yards, respectively, in Clause 30, as against the old distance of 40 and 45 yards generally adopted seventy years ago, is an agreed Clause with the owners of the land through which this, railway runs. In so far as this particular Bill and Clause are concerned, his criticisms and objections do not have the same force, if he will allow me to say so, that his argument in favour of a general reconsideration applicable to all railways and mining properties ought to have for a common rule applicable to all railways and mines. But he knows the district. He has laid his case before the House, and he appeals to me to give this subject, as I have a right to, that serious consideration in its general aspects that so important a subject deserves. I can promise him that as he has asked my consideration it is my duty to respond and to say that this matter shall receive in its general aspect general consideration. May I say this to the hon. Member: I cannot conceive that railway companies would light-heartedly and capriciously do anything to damnify the mining interests within the curtilage of their railways, because the extent to which the railways capriciously or foolishly limit the mining property and prevent coal from being worked as near the railway as it can safely be worked, having regard to life and property to the extent to which they capriciously prevent mining from being carried on, is the measure of the damage they inflict upon themselves as carriers of coal. But there are times when vested interests and large companies and great individuals are so obsessed with

  479
  their own importance that they often do things that an enlightened self-interest would prevent them from doing. I have only this to say, that I do not think the railway companies are so foolishly regardless of their own interests as to capriciously prevent mining property being developed as close up to the railway as is consistent with life and property.
  I may go further and say that if the hon. Member thinks he has a grievance against the general law, and I think he has some complaint, and if he uses this opportunity for giving a particular instance and illustration of the absurd character of the general law as applied by this Bill, may I point out that it is within the competence of the Committee before whom this Bill comes not to accept the prescribed distance of 130, 150, or 160 yards, even though they have been agreed to by the railway company and the owners of the land in which there is coal to be worked. The hon. Baronet, in my judgment, has been very reasonable. He has said, and I think he is right, that no one should use the House of Commons as a means of preventing railway companies in the exercise of public rights getting the full exercise of their franchise which they get through the agency of private Bills. He has said he has never opposed—and it is perfectly true—a railway company for any local, and certainly not for any personal consideration, and he only raises this point on broad, public, and general grounds in the interests of equity and just treatment of all concerned. He has asked me to give an undertaking. I readily reply to his request, and the undertaking I will give him is that I will transmit to the Chairman of the Committee, and through him to the Committee that deals with this particular Bill, the observations and representations he has made, and his representations shall be communicated to them as I now undertake to do. There is nothing which prevents the Committee from either accepting the distances or rejecting them entirely or varying the distances of the yardage in Clause 30 of this particular Bill. Beyond that I think that the hon. Baronet is perfectly within his right to direct my attention to the point as to whether the time has not arrived when the 1845 Act should be adapted to modern mining conditions, and made more in consonance with the practical considerations of modern mining than the old laws enabled that to be done. I may also point out
  480
  that not only mining conditions, but railway conditions have also enormously changed. The conditions that satisfied light locomotives of ten, fifteen, and twenty tons, with trucks which did not carry more than two or three tons seventy or eighty years ago, are not suitable now. The conditions have changed not only for mining, but also for railways with their tremendous locomotives, many of them 100 tons, with trucks carrying from ten to twenty tons, with greater vibration and solidity of work, requiring broader and deeper embankments, with bigger slopes, and with greater reasons for stability than the old circumstances. Whilst bearing in mind the changed conditions of mining, we ought also to bear in mind the changed condition of railway construction, working, and administration, and above all, we must also realise, and I am glad that public opinion is very properly insisting, that railway companies should make their railways wider, their foundations deeper, and their lines safer than previously they were constructed. If it be true that mining has changed, it is only fair to remember that railways have also changed. The hon. Member has asked me quite fairly to give an undertaking and an assurance, which I now do. I note the criticism which he has applied to this particular Bill, and I notice that he does not intend to oppose it. On the contrary, he thinks that the £600,000 worth of work, which this Railway Bill will enable the company to expend during the forthcoming year in the interests not only of the railway, but the public in general and the mining industry, ought not to be delayed. The hon. Baronet does not intend to put this criticism on the general subject of Clause 30 to a Division; he wants the Bill to pass, and with the assurance I have given him, I trust he will allow this Bill to go to its Second Reading.
  Mr. HAMILTON: The President of the Board of Trade seems inclined to give pledges to-night, and I should like from him a further pledge in connection with the North-Eastern Railway and the North-western Railway in regard to the connection between certain trains.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see what that has to do with this Bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON: I said the North-Eastern and the North-Western and these two companies are supposed to make connections between their trains at certain stations. As a member of the business

  481
  public in Manchester and district, I have found very great inconvenience in this respect. In Whit week I missed a train at Leeds which is shown in both companies' time-tables as having a connection at that station. The North-Eastern train did not wait for the North-Western, with the result that I had to travel by another line, and I landed in Manchester three hours late. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will just communicate the fact that we do want trains to make connections if they are shown as making connections in the time tables. It is only a question of the North-Eastern Company approaching the Northwestern Company in a friendly spirit, and arranging for their trains to work in the interests of the travelling public. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he will do something in this matter.
  Mr. BURNS: May I say that it is not necessary to give that assurance. The agents of the companies are under the Gallery, and no doubt they have noted the point, for I notice that they smiled at it. Whether the complaint is serious or not I do not know, but I am sure they will give the matter their consideration.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
CLAUSE 1.—(See col. 436).
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed [Mr. Peto]: After the word "Ireland," to insert the words "at the following rates."
Mr. PETO: In the Debate upon the Amendment which I have proposed, to reduce the duty on tea of a low importation value, there has really only been one line of objection, and that is the difficulty in the way of collecting the revenue, if it is necessary for the Customs authorities to have a knowledge of what the importation value is. The Secretary to the Treasury told us that he had ascertained that the bulk of the tea imported into London had a lower importation value than 9d. the pound, and he proceeded to
482
explain that 70 per cent. of the tea was below 9d. the pound importation value, 20 per cent. between 9d. and 1s., and 10 per cent. above 1s., and upon that he makes his calculation. He bases his whole argument against this Amendment on the fact that it would be impossible or very difficult for the Customs authority to find out what was the price of the tea. I did not bring forward this Amendment without having gone to the trouble of finding out what were the actual conditions which regulate the trade. I found that the vast bulk of the tea sold in London is sold at public auction in Mincing Lane while still in bond, and in the case of every pound so sold, the market value put upon it on importation and whilst in bond is known. There is such a thing as the produce clearing house, and money is advanced running into hundreds of thousands of pounds upon tea in bond. Consequently the whole of that tea has a known value, or this business of advancing the money could not be done at all. Through the produce clearing houses advances are made to tea traders on the value of their tea. Banks make advances in the same way, and therefore I think what the Secretary to the Treasury has said on this point is rather a slender form of argument to use a reference to a proposal of this kind. Let me put one other ground of argument before the Committee. I do not want it to be imagined that I have not gone into the question before bringing forward this Amendment. Take the experience of the United States of America, where they have got an ad valorem duty. They have had no difficulty in ascertaining the true invoice value. They have recently taken the most stringent steps against bogus invoice values, and they have been absolutely successful in getting the true market value, so that the import duty is truly and justly levied.
Whenever we on this side of the House propose to reduce the Tea Duty, because we say it is a commodity which is largely used by poor people, we are told that it is entirely a delusion to suppose that the really poor people drink cheap tea. We are told that they are very particular, and drink very expensive tea. I can only imagine, if it is not the poor people in the country who drink the poorest tea, that it must be such wealthy people as the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), and supporters of the Government of that kind

483
who are forced to buy shilling tea on account of the high Income Tax. When it is seriously put forward that cheap tea is practically never consumed by poor people, I think hon. Members who sit below the Gangway, and others who use this argument, must be in rather strange circumstances for an argument. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) told us that he stood by every word he said on 7th May this year. An extract from his speech was quoted by the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), that it was an iniquitous tax which pressed most heavily on the poorest of the poor. Yet he is not going to vote in favour of this Amendment. He says that the principle of the Labour party is to look at the Budget as a whole and not to consider the details of any particular Amendment put forward for fear that they might do something to injure the prospects of the Government and forward the policy of the party on this side of the House. I refrained from making any attack on hon. Members below the Gangway, because I confidently expected that I should have their support in the Lobby, and I do think it is rather ill requiting after I have made a perfectly fair speech from their point of view, asking their co-operation and assistance, to find the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) telling the Committee that he is convinced this is not an honest Amendment at all, and that its true inwardness was never disclosed by me in the speech I made in introducing it. That is not an argument at all. It is an assumption that hon. Members in this House have the right to see into the minds of Members who are introducing Amendments, and to tell the Committee or the House that the Amendments are not honest or fair, and that they are not putting the case they really have before the House, but are trying to do something by some back-stairs method.
I did not refer to any other methods for reducing the Tea Tax, but the hon. Member for Blackburn proceeded to go into the whole question of the Tariff Reform policy. He made what struck me as an unfair statement which should not pass unchallenged. He said that our purpose in proposing to reduce any of these food taxes which press directly on the poor people of the country is to muddle up the indirect taxation, so that it may be easier for us, not to reduce taxes upon articles of con-
484
sumption, but, while reducing them on the one hand, to impose another set of duties, which he said would be indirect duties, and which would be bound in the larger part to fall upon the poorer classes. I entirely deny that. I say that it is an utter delusion to suppose that the operation of any tariff would press upon articles consumed to anything like the same degree as the Tea Tax. It would be perfectly possible, if you chose to do so, to tax only those articles which would never be used by the poorer people at all. He took it as an axiom that a tariff was bound to press upon the poor people, and I must protest against that. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why it is held to be impossible to do in this country with our Customs officials precisely that which is being done in other countries at the present time. When there is no differentiation of the tax at all, he is able to make an accurate estimate of the exact import value of the tea brought into this country, and yet he tells the Committee, if this Amendment were accepted and a graduated tax according to the import value was imposed, that it would be quite impossible to find out what was that import value. Far from it being impossible, I do not believe that there would be any difficulty in the matter at all. Therefore, as that is the only line of argument put forward, I confidently hope that a larger number of Members will support the Amendment than would have been the case if there had been any substantial argument whatever produced against it.
Mr. MILLS: I hardly expected that my hon. Friend would have the support of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, but I was interested to see the reason which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) produced in order to get his party out of the difficult position of having to vote against an Amendment to which they are committed by their speeches, and of which we know they thoroughly approve. The hon. Gentleman's defence was extremely skilful, but he might, of course, have put it in very much fewer words. He might have said, "Whatever our views may be upon this particular Amendment, we mean to keep the Government in, and we mean to support them at all costs." It is not my business to inquire into the domestic affairs of the Labour party, but when he proudly says that he knows his own people, and that they have sufficient intelligence to understand what he is doing in this matter, all I can say is that

485
I do not think it is quite so clear that they would approve of this principle of supporting the Liberal Government at whatever cost and whether the proposed measures suit the Labour party's views or not. He did not confine himself to defending his position, but he went on to attack us, and I gather that his attack was something like this: He did not believe that we were sincere in moving this Amendment. It was only a trap to try and obtain the vote of hon. Members below the Gangway, and so embarras the Government. He might reconsider his provision if we, for our part, would consent to increase the direct taxation by the amount which the Treasury would lose by passing this Amendment. I really do not see that has got much to do with it. I would not presume to teach the hon. Member his business, but I should have thought, when an Amendment comes before the House of Commons of this sort, that you have got to say whether it is right or wrong. Your vote on that question cannot be decided by a hypothetical question as to what your opponents are going to do if and when they come into office. I am going to vote for this Amendment, and at the same time I have no hesitation in saying that I think direct taxation in this Budget is a great deal too high. I say it frankly, and I say that that statement can be defended on the plain logical ground that you are taking money away from the trade of the country, a course which must diminish the prosperity of the country and, incidentally, the wages of the poorer classes.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. MILLS: I was trying to reply to arguments which I understood the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) had addressed to the Committee, but I will not pursue that point any further. We are faced by two alternatives. It is up to us, we are told, if we vote for this Amendment to say whether we are prepared to meet the deficit by an increase in the Income Tax or Death Duties. I vote for this Amendment, because I am in favour of such a revision of our tariff system as would do away with or largely reduce this form of tariff, which I look upon as extravagant and hard on the poorest classes, and I would substitute a tariff arrangement which would bring
486
in an equal and indeed a greater amount of revenue, and at the same time would not press so hardly upon the poorest classes. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment, and not because I wish to catch the votes of the Labour party or anybody else, by pretending that I am in favour of increasing direct taxation at the expense of indirect taxation. Not only am I not in favour of that, but I am certain that 99 per cent. of the Members of this House agree with me, although for electoral reasons it is not easy for them to give expression to that belief. All the arguments with which the Government have rebutted this Amendment have been used practically in dealing with every suggestion we make on financial questions. They simply say, "all right, if you pass your Amendment there is so much deficit. How do you propose to make it up?" That is not our business. It is the business of the Government. It is their duty to frame the Budget. I consider that they have framed an exceedingly bad one, and that these particular proposals are some of the worst among many very bad proposals, and for that reason I am going to support my hon. Friend's Amendment.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken told us he would not only reduce the Tea Duty, but he would substitute other duties which would press more hardly on the richer part of the population. Involved of course in that statement is the fact, which I am glad to see is dawning at last on hon. Members opposite, that the consumer pays the import duty.
Mr. MILLS: On non-competitive goods.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: If the hon. Member secures a revenue to put in the place of the direct taxation of which he complains—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of tariffs here.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I was only trying to reply in a very few words to the statement made by the hon. Member. I should like to recall, if I may, the attention of the Committee to the history of the Tea Duty. The hon. Gentleman says we have no right to take into account what may possibly be done by this party if they are returned to office. May I remind him, as bearing upon the sincerity

487
of this particular Amendment, what was done by the Tory party while it was in office? I find that on 6th March, 1900, the Tory party increased the Tea Duty from 4d. to 6d.—[An HON. MEMBER: "A war tax!"]—and on 20th April, 1904, when the war was safely over the Tea Tax was increased from 6d. to 8d.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: And what happened in 1905?
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am coming to that presently.
Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: May I point out that since 1900 the whole fiscal policy of the Unionist party, as regards direct taxation, has absolutely changed?
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I congratulate the hon. Member on the facility with which his party changes its mind. It is well to call attention in this Debate in which we are charged with revising our Budget to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire raised the Tea Tax from 6d. to 8d. in 1904, and on 1st July, 1905, incontinently brought it down again to 6d.—one of the quickest changes of mind with regard to the Tea Duty that ever occurred in this country. At that 6d. the party opposite left the Tea Duty. What have we done? It is important to remember that we have done two things. In the first place we have actually reduced it from 6d. to 5d., and in the second place we have changed entirely the relationship of direct and indirect taxation, so that in addition to actually reducing the Tea Duty, we have relatively decreased it even more. May I remind the hon. Gentleman responsible for this Amendment, that whereas in 1895 the revenue from these duties in this country amounted to from 2s. to 2s. 3d. per head of population, ten years later, in 1905, when they went out of office, the amount was 7s. 3d. per head of population, while in 1913 it had fallen to a little over 4s. 6d. per head of population.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into all these questions on this Amendment.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: But I submit that this does bear very directly on the Tea Duty as showing that not only have we reduced the duty, but we have also relatively reduced it even more, and therefore the motive of the hon. Gentle-
488
man who moved this Amendment has been respected by my right hon. Friends, and has in fact been carried into effect in their Budgets. In regard to the suggestion that we have not to take into consideration the possibilities of taxation by some future administration, we have to remember what the leaders and Friends of the hon. Member opposite did as regards the Tea Duty when in office, and what has been done with it by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, taking all these considerations into account, surely there can be no doubt as to how the vote should be given by those who profess the sentiments of the Mover of this Amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had not intended to take any part in this discussion, but the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Chiozza Money) happened to be referring to me at the moment I came back into the House. I do not think he has a very clear recollection of what took place in regard to the Tea Duty. He said I had shown a remarkably quick change of mind. He professed to give some history of the Tea Duty under the Unionist Administration as well as under the present administration, but he omitted to mention that before I had to deal with the Tea Duty at all, the party of which I am a Member, had reduced it, and he also omitted to say that, although I put it on, in order to meet a deficit, I took it off in the following year without any change of mind, and because it had served the purpose with which it was put on.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I gather it is not my right hon. Friend's intention to vote for this Amendment. It is a fairly good rule in this House among independent Members that when the Front Benches are agreed they should be opposed by those behind them, and I intend to follow that course on this occasion. I am glad to see that the Government and the House have taken this Amendment much more seriously on this occasion than on former occasions. The intelligent and illuminating speech of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) was especially damaging, because when amendments of this kind are brought forward by the Opposition, there is always a suspicion, even if it be not stated, that they are moved and spoken to for obstructive purposes. In view of speeches like that of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Black-

489
burn (Mr. Snowden), and other Members on that side of the House, it cannot be said of this Amendment on this occasion that it has been moved with any obstructive object or spoken to with any obstructive object, else they are parties to the offence. On the last occasion when I moved this Amendment the then Secretary to the Treasury made a very different reply from that we have heard tonight. He opposed it without any arguments in a manner which is only capable of the description that truculence was used as a cloak for ignorance. He said that he was not sure whether he should treat it seriously, that I had voted the other way some years before—forgetting the fact that practically the whole of his party, and those who spoke, had spoken in favour of the present Amendment—and he then sat down, thinking he had scored.
It is true that on this occasion the Government have attempted to make some defence, but perhaps it has been a matter of expediency and not of principle. I think they admit the principle that the high-priced article used by richer men ought to be more highly taxed than the lower-priced article used presumably by poorer men. It is an extraordinary argument to say you should resist an ad valorem duty because some poor people drink high-priced tea. Who is it that drinks the high-priced tea? Is it not the rich person? Presumably low-priced tea is drunk by some poor people, and I submit that they should have some relief. We are under great difficulties in this matter, because we are not in a position to be able to propose a higher rate on the high-priced tea; therefore the representative of the Treasury is always in a position to say that this Amendment will cost so much. We put it to the Government that they ought to increase the duty on the high-priced teas which are the drink of the rich old ladies whose tea is the great comfort of their declining years. I believe they would admit that too, but they fall back on the practical difficulties. What are those practical difficulties? They are based, I suppose, on the principle that there is no particular test in the instance of this particular commodity. In the case of sugar the degrees of saccharine are detected by the use of the polariscope. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong in that. In the case of tobacco the test is one of moisture, and in the case of wine it is the amount of alcohol. It is true that there is nothing in the case of tea by which you can test
490
it, but surely that does not exhaust the activities of the Customs officials, and they are not unequal to the task of being able to levy an ad valorem tax, even if they have not the polariscope or the means used in detecting the exact degree of moisture in tobacco or the amount of alcohol in wine!
In Holland, which I believe is a Free Trade country, they have a small ad valorem tax on a large number of imports. What do the Dutch Customs officials do? Are they equal to their duties or not? I believe that they collect a substantial ad valorem duty from all kinds of miscellaneous articles in cases where they cannot have any specified tax on an article. They have solved the problem there, and what is possible in Free Trade Holland ought to be possible in Free Trade England. The hon. Member who spoke last from the other side, when speaking on a previous occasion, said that tea was a vegetable substance wholly unnecessary to man. I do not know whether he wishes to repeat that on the present occasion. It is unnecessary to some men, and it is not only unnecessary but extremely deleterious to myself, and I never drink it; therefore I am not affected one way or the other by his argument. It is, however, a comfort and solace to great numbers of people in this country. The Amendment is thoroughly defensible. I do not care whether my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) is opposed to it or not. If he votes one way, I shall vote the other. The principle is admitted, and it is nonsense to say that the Customs officials in this country are incapable of solving a problem which in Holland and other countries is perfectly easy of solution.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: There comes to my mind in this connection a certain Report of a Royal Commission issued about twenty years ago, which pointed out that the most largely adulterated article in the country is tea, that such adulteration is worse at a time when the cost of living is high, as it is at the present time, and that the more serious adulteration occurs in the case of low-priced tea, of which, presumably, the working classes are the chief consumers. I am conscious that there is a very large amount of highly adulterated tea, and most of the working-class consumers are probably wholly unaware that when they are drinking very cheap tea with a high tax upon it a very large proportion of what they

491
are drinking is not tea at all, but consists of beech-leaves and ash-leaves grown upon the trees of this country.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 241.

Division No. 145.]

AYES.

[9.43 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gilmour, Captain John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goldman, C. S.

Perkins, Walter F.

Astor, Waldorf

Goldsmith, Frank

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baird, John Lawrence

Grant, James Augustus

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Baldwin, Stanley

Greene, Walter Raymond

Randies, Sir John S.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Barnston, Harry

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Royds, Edmund

Barrie, H. T.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

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

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Harris, Henry Percy

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Blair, Reginald

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hills, John Waller

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bowden, G. R. Harland

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Boyton, James

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stewart, Gershom

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Butcher, John George

Horner, Andrew Long

Swift, Rigby

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

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Campion, W. R.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Kerry, Earl of

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tickler. T. G.

Cassel, Felix

Larmor, Sir J.

Touche, George Alexander

Cautley, H. S.

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

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Cave, George

Lee, Arthur H.

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, George Loyd

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)

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

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Mackinder, H. J.

Weston. Colonel J. W.

Currie, George W.

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

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Malcolm, Ian

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Denniss, E. R. B.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Winterton, Earl

Dixon, C. H.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Worthington Evans, L.

Duncannon, Viscount

Moore, William

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mount, William Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Newdegate, F. A.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Nield, Herbert

Fell, Arthur

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Forster, Henry William

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

Peto and Mr. Sandys.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Bryce, J. Annan

Donelan, Captain A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Doris, William

Adamson, William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duffy, William J.

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Agnew, Sir George

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Elverston, Sir Harold

Alden, Percy

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Arnold, Sydney

Chancellor, Henry George

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Chappie, Dr. William Allen

Falconer, James

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Farrell, James Patrick

Ballour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Clough, William

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clynes, John R.

Ffrench, Peter

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Field, William

Barnes, George N.

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Fitzgibbon, John

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cotton, William Francis

Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

Crooks, William

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Bentham, G. J.

Crumley, Patrick

Gill, A. H.

Black, Arthur W.

Cullinan, John

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Boland, John Pius

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

Glanville, Harold James

Booth, Frederick Handel

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Goldstone, Frank

Bowerman, Charles W.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Brace, William

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

Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dillon, John

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Millar, James Duncan

Robinson, Sidney

Hackett, John

Molloy, Michael

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Hancock, John George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Roe, Sir Thomas

Hardie, J. Keir

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rowlands, James

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rowntree, Arnold

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mooney. John J.

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

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Morgan, George Hay

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morison, Hector

Scanlan, Thomas

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Muldoon, John

Sheeny, David

Hewart, Gordon

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Shortt, Edward

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, Martin J.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Hodge, John

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Hogge, James Myles

Needham, Christopher T.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Neilson, Francis

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Snowden, Philip

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nolan, Joseph

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

John, Edward Thomas

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Sutherland, John E.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nuttall, Harry

Sutton, John E.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Doherty, Philip

Toulmin, Sir George

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Dowd, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Joyce, Michael

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

Verney, Sir Harry

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Malley, William

Walton, Sir Joseph

Kelly, Edward

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

Wardle, George J.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Kenyon, Barnet

O'Shee, James John

Webb, H.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

King, Joseph

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Lardner, James C. R.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Lundon, Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Pratt, J. W.

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

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

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Pringle, William M. R.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Radford, George Heynes

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

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

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

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wing, Thomas Edward

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Reddy, Michael

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

Manfield, Harry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Yeo, Alfred William

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Meagher, Michael

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Middlebrook, William

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Cooper) is not in order, as it involves a charge beyond the Resolution of Ways and Means.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to move to leave out the words "Tea, the pound … five pence," and to insert instead thereof the words "Tea (if grown within the British Empire), the pound … four pence. Tea (if grown in any foreign country), the pound … five pence."
I quite admit that this is not an original Amendment, but hon. Members who hold the opinions I do are always in this difficulty: If we do not bring forward an Amendment of this description we are told that we are deserting our
494
principles—that we say we are in favour of Colonial preference but that we dare not speak of it in this House or advocate it on the platform. If, on the other hand, we do move, we are told we are wasting time and that the whole question has been discussed dozens of times. We have not given up Colonial preference. It is a policy we have advocated for many years, and which is adopted and supported by members of all classes in this country, and most particularly by the labour and working-class Constituency which I represent. We believe in cementing the bonds of Empire more closely, and it can be done by such a proposal as this. I shall be told probably in reply that it will cost something. I am very doubtful whether it will cost as much as is some-

495
times said. At any rate, it will be a gain to the Empire, as a whole, and it will stimulate the growth of tea within the Empire. It may cost something additional. It may cost £1,000,000, but if it does we have our compensating proposal, and we should go in for the policy of Tariff Reform and the taxation of luxuries and foreign manufactured goods. What has been really interesting in this Debate and the last is the attitude of the Labour party. They have been at pains to make very elaborate explanations why they should vote against any Amendment of this kind. Although they have supported a reduction of the Tea Duty in their election addresses and in their speeches, they prefer to act in this particular case, not on the merits of the Amendment, but with the object of keeping the present Government in power. In fact, they would go so far as to vote for the Tea Duty if the Government desired them to do so, and they would vote against it if the Government desired them to do away with it. Where is the independence of the Labour party? They make fair promises, but they do not carry them out, and it is no wonder that many of their own supporters in the country are asking what is the use of the Labour party in Parliament at all?
Mr. HODGE: Ask Lord Claud Hamilton.
Mr. CECIL: It is now one of the difficulties, I think, in dealing with this subject to-night that, so far as I can make out, no return as to the consumption of tea has been presented to the House for two or three years, and, therefore, there is, unless I am mistaken, considerably greater difficulty than usual in bringing the figures up to date, or in presenting the case as it now stands. Two or three years ago 260,000,000 pounds of tea grown in the British Empire were imported into this country, chiefly from India and Ceylon, and Natal to an insignificant degree; whereas 36,000,000 pounds not grown in the British Empire were imported into this country. That is to say, mainly from China, so that the proportion of imported tea not grown in the British Empire is roughly one-seventh of the whole. Therefore if we pass this Amendment, we shall be largely benefiting India and Ceylon, and bringing about that policy of Colonial Preference which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
496
West Birmingham has so brilliantly elaborated, and we shall be doing a good turn to India at a time when I think it is eminently desirable to draw closer the links between it and this country. I submit that we shall not be doing any harm to tea coming from other countries. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year devoted a great deal of time to pointing out that China was our best customer, and that it was a great pity to penalise tea coming from that country. He said we ought not to discriminate against our best customer. That frame of mind seems to me a very unreasonable one. We ought to look at it from a business point of view—not as a matter of penalising a foreign country, but as one giving benefits to our own Colonies. We shall gain as much by doing that, and probably a great deal more, both sentimentally and commercially.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. CECIL: I do not want to be drawn into a long discussion, but it is perfectly plain that if you have tea at a lower rate from the Colonies, it will not merely be a benefit to the consumer here, but foreign countries will have to give it at a lower price in order to compete. The hon. Member (Mr. Chiozza Money) is, I know, most anxious to sow the seeds of separation, so far as commerce is concerned, between this country and the Colonies.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: You have no right to say so.
Mr. CECIL: The policy of the Colonial conferences has been to draw closer the relations between this country and the Colonies. I do not know why I should press this argument in this way when I can go to an excellent authority who probably will persuade hon. Members opposite far better than I can. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a long and varied career in this House. I want more particularly to call his attention to the fact that on, 11th May, 1896, he moved on an occasion, precisely similar to this, to insert after "Tea Duty" the words "except in respect of tea grown in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions." Therefore, he was really the pioneer, and I only hope he will maintain the arguments he then used. His first

497
argument—I am quoting from Hansard of 11th May, 1896, was:—
"The practical effect would be to except from taxation the tea of India and Ceylon, and tea grown in any of our Colonies."
There was no suggestion about China then, or that it would be penalised. He went on to say:—
"A good deal was said about a British Zollverein to encourage British trade in all parts of the world. Here was an opportunity of making a practical start."
I am entirely anxious in this respect to be his follower, and I only hope that he will give me the opportunity of being so tonight. He went on:—
"Another reason for helping India was that taxes there were exceedingly heavy."
He developed that argument by pointing out that by Colonial preference on tea India would be assisted. An hon. Member who supported him at that time was the hon. Baronet the Member for West Denbighshire (Sir Herbert Roberts). He seconded the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, and said:—
"That tax ought not be suffered to remain, not only in the interests of the poorer consuming classes, but of an industry in the Island of Ceylon which deserved encouragement. The present condition of India did not justify the House in retaining any duty which might be prejudicial to our Indian Empire."
I am standing here to-night to maintain the principle of Colonial preference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that that principle was a sound one when he was a free lance before his party made it a party question. I appeal to him now that he is one of the leaders of his party to have the courage to admit the soundness of the argument which he then used, and to consent to adopt this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Sir PHILIP SASSOON: I rise to second this Amendment. In doing so I would like to call attention to two aspects of it. The first is the benefit which would naturally accrue to the working classes from its adoption. As the hon. Member who has just sat down pointed out, out of 300,000,000 pounds of tea imported into this country every year, only one-seventh is foreign grown. With so large a proportion of the whole supply provided by them, it is impossible to believe that the competition between the growers of India will not bring down the price for the home consumer by the full extent of the remission of duty. Last year, the duty paid at the 5d. rate on tea came to £5,500,000. Therefore, the value of the reduction of a penny would be £1,100,000, and if 2d. were taken off, it would relieve the Chancellor of the Ex-
498
chequer of some of his embarrassment of riches, and put £2,200,000 into the pockets of the poor. Hitherto the chief argument adduced against this Amendment which has been so often introduced has been that it would cost too much, but this cannot apply this year. That is one aspect of it. The other aspect of it is this: There is a number of Members who profess to take a very active interest in the affairs of India, an interest which does not always take the form that the bulk of educated opinion in India would desire it to take, that is endeavouring to make the Home Government take some notice of India's special commercial needs. I do not want to enter into, any controversial matters on this point, but if any evidence were needed to show the attitude which India adopted towards these proposals it is supplied very abundantly by the proposals introduced a little more than a year ago into the Legislative Council to increase the revenues of India by a system of preferential tariffs with the United Kingdom. A revision of those with regard to Indian-grown tea would very materially help India.
That does not necessarily mean that the thirty or forty million pounds grown in China would necessarily be transferred to India. China tea has a very special market, which would continue even after preference had been given to India, and the encouragement of an increased consumption of Indian tea produced by the reduction in price, and the consequent benefit to India, would not be effected at the cost of China. But, if so, what reason can there be for refusing the benefit to India? The Government have a very great, responsibility towards India, a responsibility which generally is discharged by giving one day at the end of the Session, when the temperature is too much in keeping with the subject under discussion for the attendance to be large. Here is an opportunity for working off that responsibility in a way which India would easily appreciate. China ought not to be allowed to stand in the way even though the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that China is one of our best customers, especially with regard to Lancashire. This is an argument which I find very difficult to understand. China is a good customer. Is India not a good customer too? Which is the more important trade for the Lancashire market, the India trade or the, China trade? Anyone who looks into the

499
figures on a purely material basis, without taking into consideration the fact that we owe a duty to India, which we do not owe to China, will see that India has a far greater claim upon our good will than China. Last year China bought from us 573,000,000 yards of cotton piece goods, value £9,500,000, and India bought 3,000,000,000 yards of cotton piece goods, value £35,000,000—more in quantity though some what less in value than the whole of our export to foreign countries—and she bought in addition 37,000,000 lbs. weight of cotton yarn, value £2,500,000. In face of these figures, the argument that China has a greater claim on us than India can carry very little weight even in Lancashire.
It is said that China is a developing market. So is India. The population of China I have never heard put at a higher figure than 400,000,000, a population harassed by disorder, and torn by the most horrible forms of civil strife. India possesses a known population of 315,000,000 under an established government, and increasing in prosperity from year to year. There is no doubt which population supplies Lancashire with the more valuable market. Is it to be said that India is secured, and that China is still to be won? That is a most unworthy argument. It is suggested that we use our political hold over India to exploit it in favour of Lancashire. That is the suggestion which is often made, for which it may be that the existing Customs and Excise Duties in force in India lend some colour. The usual duty on imports into British India is 5 per cent. ad valorem. Cotton goods pay only 3½ per cent., and there is an Excise Duty of 3½ per cent. on all woven cotton goods manufactured in India at power rates, the products of hand looms being exempt. This House would think twice before encouraging such an idea, because among other reasons it is an impracticable one, since the manufacturers of Lancashire have far more to lose by the spread of the, Swadeshi movement in India than through any resentment felt in China for any preference shown to India. If China did feel any resentment she would have no right to do so. England has done a great deal for China, mostly at the expense of India. By an act of vicarious generosity she has sacrificed the whole opium trade of India to the moral regeneration of China. What this has meant for India may be gathered
500
from the fact that the poppy fields under crops in Bengal, which amounted to 500,000 acres in 1905–6, have been reduced to 200,000 acres in 1911–12. The only market for opium outside India is China to-day, and this we did for the sake of China, who has not carried out her share of the bargain. There are many districts in China open to the cultivation of the poppy, and for the local demand there is local production. It is high time some consideration was shown to India, and that something was done for our fellow subjects there. It is not a great concession which the House is asked to make, and certainly it is a step in the right direction. It is an acknowledgment that India has some claim on us, and if it is realised by the encouragement of industries in that great Dependency, the better will it be, not only for India herself, but for our own manufacturers, and the better for England, and especially Lancashire. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in an ideal position. At one and the same time they are able to satisfy three of their most cherished ambitions. They can benefit millions of these natives in India who, at any other time, so readily command their sympathy. They can also confer a very real benefit on the working classes of this country, and they can also take two and a half millions out of the pockets of the rich and put them into the pockets of the poor. That they may not be prevented from giving full range to their personal feelings in this matter. I will give them—though it has already been given to them a precedent with which they cannot quarrel, an authority they cannot challenge. I will make one other quotation out of the speech of the then Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which has a very important bearing upon this Amendment and helps us very much. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"We ought to encourage industries in those parts of the Empire that were not self-governing. Those that were self-governing, had taken advantage of that fact to impose duties upon goods sent from this country. India and Ceylon had no power to do so; they could impose no duties upon imports from this country without the consent of this country, and that was a ground for exempting their produce in this country from taxation. It was easy to make speeches upon questions of this character, but what was the good of doing so, now that they had the opportunity to carry out a policy of that kind? They had a great surplus, and they had the opportunity of making a fair start with a Zollverein. Let them begin by taking the duty off tea…. It was of the greatest importance that Indian industries, and especially an industry of this character, should be

501
encouraged. To impose heavy duties on tea was to discourage the tea industry, to arrest its growth, and to deprive the people of India of profitable employment."
I am in full accord with every word of what the right hon. Gentleman then said, and surely the Amendment could not be helped more forcibly than by the arguments he then used. The right hon. Gentleman has the matter in his own hands, and I would urge him to help it in the same admirable manner as he did eighteen years ago, in such convincing terms.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The Motion which is before the Committee is indeed, as the hon. Mover admitted, something of a hardy annual, but we shall all feel that the Mover and the hon. Baronet, who seconded, deserve to be congratulated, because they have introduced, in circumstances of some difficulty, a certain air of novelty into the arguments that they have adduced. They have called in aid, with a dexterity and depth of conviction which we can do nothing more than respectfully admire, the speech of my right hon. Friend delivered in years of less responsibility and more freedom, but which I should have thought even a sincere Tariff Reformer would have observed was delivered in a vein of mockery. I will tell hon. Gentlemen opposite, since they do not seem to know, what was the nature of it. Having made his speech, my right hon. Friend was asked who he nominated as a Teller with him, and he nominated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who had just made a speech in support of a Zollverein, and that right hon. Gentleman hastily left the House. It is really delightful to see, after all these years have passed, that my right hon. Friend's merry moments should be recalled with such fervour and devotion by those who still profess to be Tariff Reformers. And, indeed, that is all that has been left. This is their night out, this is the one occasion when the great forces of Tariff Reform are rallied in order that the people of this country may be reminded what possibilities really exist in this regard. I take note, if the hon. Member will allow me to refer to what he said, with much satisfaction to his statement, made in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am quite certain receiving his silent support, that hon. Gentlemen opposite join in this discussion and support this proposal because, of course, the Unionist party has not given up Colonial
502
preference. I do so with the more satisfaction, because, of course, we have long ago been told by the principal authorities of that creed that Colonial preference is only possible if you have a preference on the different foods that are imported. I will not trouble the House with a very hackneyed quotation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, but I will vary it by a quotation less well known from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He made a contribution to a most valuable book for Unionist speakers, in the course of which he referred to this subject, and he said, speaking of his Free Trade opponents:—
"They say that we cannot have preferential trade without a tax upon food, which is true."
So far as this poor remnant is concerned, the annual proposal to differentiate in the matter of the Import Duty upon tea, I am not so certain that the Tariff Reformers in this House were well advised to allow two people to speak about it, because, of course, you cannot expect them to agree.
The hon. Gentleman who moved explained to us that the result of this proposal would be that we would increase the import from within the boundaries of our own Empire. The foreign producer would, no doubt, suffer, but what did that matter after all; blood is thicker than water—that is his view. The hon. Baronet, who seconded, in a speech which we all admired, explained in the blandest way that, of course, the effects of this proposal would not be to reduce the importation of China tea, not by a single pound, and that the people who wanted to have it would still have it, and that there would be the same imports from China as before, and that everybody is going to be happy. The hon. Gentleman who moved said, not I think quite accurately, that recent figures are not really conveniently available as to the extent to which there is consumption in this country as between tea which comes from within the Empire and from outside. Perhaps he would allow me to give him what I believe to be the correct figures of the two as far as possible up to date. The truth is that even under this despised system which we at present suffer from the British Empire gets on fairly well in this matter. Of all the tea that is imported into this country year by year enormously the greater part is tea which is produced within the boundaries of the British Empire. The figures I have here—from the Depart-

503
merit of course—are for the year 1913–14. Having made the necessary correction, which is a very important one, in regard to the tea that comes to this country and goes out again without being taken out of bond, the figures of actual consumption are something of this kind. The tea from British East India and Ceylon, which for this purpose may be treated as the principal places of origin within the British Empire, amounted in the year 1913–14 to about 270,000,000 lbs, while the tea from China, which is to be made the particular object of attack in this Amendment, including that from Hong Kong, is about 11,000,000 lbs. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Java?"] The tea from other countries outside the British Empire is a great deal more than that which comes from China, the amount being about 31,000,000 lbs. Taking the figures as a whole, you have consumed in this country about 270,000,000 lbs. of tea grown within the British Empire, and about 42,000,000 lbs. grown outside the British Empire. The hon. Gentleman will therefore see that, comparing these figures with those which he quoted, there is not much indication that under our present system of equal treatment the British grower is suffering as compared with the foreign grower; on the contrary, the British grower is sending us more tea than he did some years ago. The tea grown in British India and Ceylon represents about 85 per cent. of the total consumption in this country, while about 3½ per cent. comes from China, and something over 10 per cent. from other places.
In these circumstances nobody can say that the tea grower within the British Empire is suffering by the hard stroke of fate which insists upon still preserving that which has been the principle of our Free Trade system. In point of fact, the amount that would be lost to the revenue by this change is proportionately great, because if you let off from a portion of the duty 85 per cent. of the supply, obviously you drop a considerable amount of money. If my calculation is correct, the knocking off of one penny in respect of tea grown in the British Empire would mean not far short of £1,000,000—about £850,000. That being so, and there being plainly no case of real hardship, is there any other justification for what is now suggested? I should have thought that there was none. The trade with India is a very great and important
504
trade, but the idea that that trade is being imperilled by Indian trade with Japan or the Far East, as is sometimes suggested on Tariff Reform platforms, is one that no business man will accept for a moment. The Lancashire trade with India is incomparably greater than that of any of these competing traders with that country. On the other hand, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer never said that our trade with China was more important than our trade with India—that would obviously be an impossible proposition to maintain—he is well within the fact when he points out that our trade with China is a great and rapidly growing trade. It is a trade which, in the circumstances of the case, offers great opportunities for expansion if we do not put artificial obstacles in the way. There are people who would be very glad to get a larger share of the trade with China and to oust ourselves, and yet hon. Members opposite, without any justification on the ground of hardship to those who grow tea within the British Empire, actually suggest that this change should be made, when it obviously involves retaliation or differential treatment as against a great and growing customer of this country, with whom it is of the first importance that we should exchange products with the greatest freedom and in the greatest quantity as far as we may. Therefore, for these reasons, the hon. Mover and his supporter will not be surprised to hear that we think it necessary to resist this Amendment. We are none the less truly grateful to them for giving us the opportunity of listening to an exposition of Tariff Reform principles up-to-date.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have-been rather surprised at the Attorney-General, of all people, being selected to defend the taxes in the Budget, or any point in the Budget on which there can be no question of law, had it not been that my hon. Friend behind me indicated in his speech a very good reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers to hold his tongue. Reference has been made to the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a certain occasion. He explains now by the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman's learned colleague that it really was all a great joke, and that he finally withdrew his Amendment, because when he named my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) as a Teller he was not there. "Hansard" does not bear

505
the right hon. Gentleman out. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment before any reference had been made at all to my right hon. Friend. The only reference—and I have just read the Debate—which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to my right hon Friend was at the end, when he expressed regret that he had not been present to take part in the discussion. Incidentally the matter is of interest to me, and I think possibly of some public interest. We are accustomed to hear it said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Tariff Reform movement was invented out of his splendid brain by the Colonial Secretary in 1903, because at that time the Unionist party was in distress, and needed something to divert the attention of the country. But we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already appeared on the scene when in 1896 he moved his Amendment for the express purpose of initiating discussion upon the subject. I could give another proof, if it were necessary, that my right hon. Friend was much more consistent and much more patient that it had been the custom to give him credit for.
I turn from that episode to the merits of the Amendment itself. I have consistently voted for this Amendment, and I shall vote for it to-night. I vote for it as an assertion of the principle laid down in our Tariff Reform policy, first propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and as defined by my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition, that where we have duties capable of affording preferences we should take the opportunity of giving preference to our own people. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General quoted my right hon. Friend, that in the present condition of commercial development of a large portion of His Majesty's Dominions you can have no preference of serious interest to them without taxes on food. This is one of the taxes on food. It is one by which you can give a material preference to the great Dependency of India, to the great Colony of Ceylon, without injury to your own people, or any industry here, and with advantage to the consumer. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen thought that he could make short work of the Amendment by imputing inconsistency to the two hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House.
506
I see no inconsistency there. If I may say so, without offence, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion has found when discussing fiscal questions that he is treating them in a manner which really does no credit to his well-known ability. What is his contention? I might begin by asking which horse hon. Gentlemen opposite want to ride? By whom do they allege the duty is paid? We have been accustomed to hear from them without qualification that the duty is paid by the consumer. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Hear, hear!"] That is their view. If you take twopence off ninepence, do you mean to tell me you are not going to lower the price? The whole contention of the Attorney-General was that you were going to lower the price, and therefore you would not benefit India. Of course any economist with a serious reputation to guard knows you cannot lay down a hard and fast rule as to the effect of duties without regard to the articles upon which they are imposed, the sources of the supply, or the proportion of the sources that comes in taxed or untaxed. But I do not think any political economist with a reputation that is of value, and which, therefore, he would not wish to lose, would venture to say that in a case like this you would not affect the price to the consumer if you relieved the British supply of one-fifth of the existing duty—that is by 20 per cent. of the duty. But then the Attorney-General wishes to argue that if we benefit the British consumer we cannot advantage the Indian producer. Again I say that argument is wholly inconsistent with a great deal of what he says on other occasions when he is out to prove some other inconsistency in Tariff Reform or some other impropriety in the policy of Tariff Reform.
If you reduce the price of tea, I do not say by a penny, but I say if you reduce the price of tea by twopence you do two things. In the first place, you advantage the consumer, and, in the second place, you would increase the consumption of tea to the advantage of the producer. I do not say that that would necessarily result from the reduction of the Tea Duty by one penny. I think if you want to produce that kind of result you should reduce the Tea Duty by twopence rather by one penny. And for that reason I would prefer to have the figure at threepence upon Imperial tea rather than fourpence. But does that

507
argument lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite? Why this very evening we had the Government and their supporters, including the hon. Member for Northampton, bragging of the reduction in the Tea Duty which this Government made, and of the advantage which they thereby brought to the consumer. What was their reduction? It was one penny, and the criticism that I and others made then was that a penny was not divisible, and was so small that no advantage would come to the consumer, and the whole argument of the Government was that although a penny could not be given in cash, it could be given in improved tea. I say when hon. Members talk of the inconsistency of my hon. Friend they should try to reconcile their own inconsistency—I will not say in reference to the case they put forward yesterday, but at least this afternoon.
I cannot leave this question without dealing with one matter which the right hon. Gentleman touched upon, and one which he did not touch upon, or, at any rate, did not deal with as I think it ought to be dealt with. The right hon. and learned Gentleman once again described the object of attack of this Amendment as China. I do not seek a quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not true. It is not true that that is the object of the Amendment. It is not true that that is the motive in our minds. But that is not all. I say that it is not patriotic for any man, whatever his views on this question, to announce to foreign countries that they have a grievance if we choose to treat the British Empire as one. It will be time for the right hon. and learned Gentlemen and his Friends to make that kind of statement when we single out China for differential treatment among foreign nations. That is not the proposal here or any portion of the policy of Imperial preference. The object of the Amendment and the policy of Imperial preference is to assert the unity of the Empire. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and hon. Members are aware that other countries have preferential arrangements with their colonies. Has he ever suggested that that was unfriendly to us? Is he prepared to say to-day that it is a mark of unfriendly conduct on the part of the United States to have preferential arrangements with Cuba or Trinidad, or that France should not have special shipping laws in regard to the trade with her colonies?
508
No, Sir. I say that assertion is not only untrue, but it is unpatriotic for any man, for the sake of securing a party success in this House or in this country, to preach the doctrine to foreign nations that they have a right to complain if the British Government throughout the world unite their efforts and their strength in a common commercial policy. The Government are not even consistent in that. I have heard Members of the Government say that if you could get Free Trade within the Empire it would be worth while, at any rate, to seriously consider whether you should not put small Customs duties against all the rest of the world to secure a Free Trade market, and to secure such commercial relations as that would involve. Once you admit that you have given up the whole principle which the Attorney-General tries to establish as regards my hon. Friends. This Amendment concerns not only us but India. Is anybody in this House comfortable about the Indian fiscal system? It is notorious that it is disliked, and I think I might even say detested by the Indian people. It is imposed upon them by us, and it would not be maintained if they were free agents in the matter. It is notorious, and I frankly admit it, that until quite recently the movement in India was a purely protectionist movement. They desired protection as much against this country as against any other. Yes, but last year there was a most important discussion in the Legislative Council, really an epoch-making discussion. For the first time a representative Indian in the Council proposed a Resolution seeking an inquiry into the possibility of the amendment of the fiscal system on a preferential basis. The then Finance Minister made a very remarkable speech on that Motion, and a most interesting discussion took place. The Finance Minister took no definite line. He tried to put the pros and cons before the Indian audience whom he was addressing. I do not want to commit him to anything which his words do not convey. He tried to put the whole case frankly before them. I hope, if any Member of the House has not read the discussion, that he will read it. I cannot go into it now. I do not want to incur your displeasure, and I do not want to say a word more than is necessary for the case which I think must be made for the Amendment. Here for the first time you had an important representative of a section of Indian public opinion moving

509
against the present Indian fiscal system, disliked by Lancashire and abhorred by India in favour, not of a pure protection for India, but of a preferential system.
It has been the work of the present Government to give Indian opinion greater opportunities of expressing itself. If you are going to pay no attention to that opinion when it does express itself, then your policy was indeed a very shortsighted one, and you left us in a worse position than we were in before. I do not believe, with the outlet of Indian opinion which the present Government has afforded, that it is possible to maintain unchanged for any long period in the life of countries the fiscal system of India as it now exists. If you offer no alternative to it, the Indians will one day force their own alternative upon you. If you insist on the attitude claimed by the Attorney-General and the Government they will force upon you the same fiscal system for India that now exists in Great Britain, and your only chance of avoiding it, and preventing the ill-will that will arise in the struggle, as well as the injury to British trade that will result, is to meet their first advancement to a Preferential fiscal system, and try in the fiscal systems of both countries to unite the interests of the two. I support this Amendment, therefore, in the spirit in which my hon. Friend moved it, as an assertion of the principle of fiscal preference within the British Empire; I support it as a measure which would be beneficial alike to the consumer in this country and to the producer in India; and I support it because I believe that, unless you will move along these lines to reform the Indian system, you may maintain your present system a little longer, but you will fare much worse in the end.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: We always on this side of the House listen to the right hon. Gentleman with interest and pleasure, and never more so than when he either defends the policy of Tariff Reform or the consistency of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. He has rather widened the scope of this Debate. He has had some very interesting things to say upon the tariff policy of the British Empire. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment made a remark with reference to an interruption of mine which, I think, was hardly worthy either of him or myself. He said I delighted to sow the seeds
510
of discord with regard to the tariff policy of the British Empire. The hon. Gentleman had no right to make such a remark as that. No word which has fallen from my lips or been written by my pen could have allowed him to make it with justice. I should like to say, with regard to what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), surely it is for the Committee seriously to consider the tariff policy of the British Empire, not only in regard to India, but in regard to the general proposals which arise in that connection. India, the right hon. Gentleman says, will some day demand the same tariff policy against this country which is demanded by other parts of the Empire—by the self-governing Colonies. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that nothing can more surely lead to such a demand than preaching Preference and Protection in the United Kingdom itself. The right hon. Gentleman says that last year there was a very interesting discussion in the Indian Council on this very subject. What has particularly led to such a discussion as that? Who has sown the seed of discord in this particular matter? I venture to submit it has been brought about by the preaching of Preference and Protection in this country, because surely for an old established country like this, with established industries, in reference to what the great protagonist of German protection—Listz—admitted that the Free Trade policy was the correct one. I say if such a country as this preaches Protection and practices it, are we not praching to the Indian people that their greatest need is a measure of Protection against its greatest competitor—the United Kingdom? If the right hon. Gentleman fears such a result as he has foreshadowed to-night I can only suggest that his own speeches are more calculated to bring about that result than our rejection of this particular Motion.
Captain TRYON: I should like briefly to answer the speech of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money). He says the feeling in India in favour of preference is due to what we have been saying in this country. I will remind him that that is not the case, because, after all, every great Colony has always given up Free Trade after being given a grant of self-government, and they are only following the precedent to be found in every country. The moment you give them a chance of saying what they really think, there is a tendency to move

511
away from Free Trade and that tendency rapidly develops itself. Therefore, in the case of India, if you have a more free expression of Indian views you cannot wonder that it should be followed by realising in this country how strong is the movement in India away from Free Trade. I think, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has naturally some sympathy for China, for not only have the people of China afforded the present Government a cry of a highly Protectionist nature, but they constitute the almost solitary instance of some other country believing in the policy of Free Trade. It seems to me also, as he has brought this question of China into the discussion, that it is only natural he should like to call attention to that country, because after all they have been converted to Free Trade largely by the process of bombarding their ports—a process which in view of other methods adopted by his party would naturally appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I would suggest that the earlier speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was simply the hon. Member for Carnarvon, embody his real views far better than his more modern pronouncements. We all know that in this matter he is somewhat kept back by the early Victorian prejudices of some of his colleagues. We have not only his earlier speeches but also his action in regard to the Patents Act to support us in that
belief. Just as his Patents Act and his tax on sugar, which is not balanced by any Excise duty, has increased production and lowered prices, so the lowering of taxation on tea grown within the Empire would increase its production and tend to lower prices.
We know that the learned Attorney-General seems unable to imagine any benefit coming to a producer except from a higher price. No doubt he gets that idea from some of the wealthy Liberals who work on such Protectionist lines in their own particular businesses, and who provide such an important portion of the funds by which this campaign is organised. I would suggest to him that a larger production of tea in India would lead to cheapen tea, and that the people of India would benefit, because if the tax is taken off tea the people of this country would be able to buy more tea and would buy more from India. Finally, I would appeal for the support of the Labour party. They have all made eloquent speeches in favour of having no taxes upon food. This seems to be a case where they might, perhaps, support their pledges. If they are absolutely and resolutely determined in this House to speak on one side of the question and vote on the other, I would ask them to speak against us and give us their votes.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 165.

Division No. 146.]

AYES.

[10.58 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Bryce, J. Annan

Donelan, Captain A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Doris, William

Adamson, William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duffy, William J.

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Agnew, Sir George William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Alden, Percy

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Chancellor, Henry George

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Arnold, Sydney

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Clancy, John Joseph

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Clough, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Clynes, John R.

Falconer, James

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Farrell, James Patrick

Barnes, George N.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ffrench, Peter

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Cotton, William Francis

Field, William

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cowan, W. H.

Fitzgibbon, John

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

Crooks, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bentham, George Jackson

Crumley, Patrick

France, Gerald Ashburner

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cullinan, John

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Black, Arthur W.

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

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Boland, John Pius

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gill, A. H.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Bowerman, Charles W.

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

Glanville, H. J.

Brace, William

Dawes, James Arthur

Goldstone, Frank

Brady, Patrick Joseph

De Forest, Baron

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Brocklchurst, William B.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

Brunner, John F. L.

Dillon, John

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

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

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Gulland, John William

Meagher, Michael

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Hackett, John

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

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Hancock, John George

Middlebrook, William

Robinson, Sidney

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Millar, James Duncan

Roch, Walter F. (Pembreke)

Hardie, J. Keir

Molloy, Michael

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roe, Sir Thomas

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Rowlands, James

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rowntree, Arnold

Hayden, John Patrick

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Mooney, John J.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, George Hay

Scanlan, Thomas

Hewart, Gordon

Morrell, Philip

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Higham, John Sharp

Morison, Hector

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

Hinds, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sheehy, David

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Muldoon, John

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hodge, John

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Shortt, Edward

Hogge, James Myles

Murphy, Martin J.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Holt, Richard Durning

Needham, Christopher T.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Neilson, Francis

Snowden, Philip

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Hudson, Walter

Nolan, Joseph

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Sutherland, John E.

John, Edward Thomas

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Sutton, John E.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, J. H.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Doherty, Philip

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Donnell, Thomas

Toulmin, Sir George

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kellaway, Frederick George

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

Verney, Sir Harry

Kelly, Edward

O'Malley, William

Walton, Sir Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Wardle, George J.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

King, Joseph

O'Shee, James John

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

O'Sullivan, Timothy

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Lardner, James C. R.

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

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

Whitehouse, John Howard

Lundon, Thomas

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whyte, Alexander F.

Lynch, A. A.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Pratt, J. W.

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Maclean, Donald

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

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

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

Pringle, William M. R.

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Winfrey, Sir Richard

M'Curdy, C. A.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Wing, Thomas Edward

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

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

Reddy, Michael

Yeo, Alfred William

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Redmond, John E (Waterford)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Manfield, Harry

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

William Jones and Mr. H. Webb.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bull, Sir William James

Dalrymple, Viscount

Ashley, W. W.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Denniss, E. R. B.

Astor, Waldorf

Butcher, John George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Baird, John Lawrence

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

Duke, Henry Edward

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

Campion, W. R.

Duncannon, Viscount

Baldwin, Stanley

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Cassel, Felix

Fell, Arthur

Barnston, Harry

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Barrie, H. T.

Cautley, H. S.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

Foster, Philip Staveley

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Ganzoni, Francis John C.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Bird, Alfred

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Gibbs, G. A.

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Courthope, George Loyd

Gilmour, Captain John

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Bowden, G. R. Harland

Craig. Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Goldman, C. S.

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian,

Goldsmith, Frank

Boyton, James

Currie, George W.

Grant, J. A.

514

515

Greene, W. R.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Spear, Sir John Ward

Gretton, John

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

Mackinder, Halford J.

Starkey, John R.

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

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

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Malcolm, Ian

Stewart, Gershom

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Swift, Rigby

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

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

Moore, William

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

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

Harris, Henry Percy

Mount, William Arthur

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Newdegate, F. A.

Tickler, T. G.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Newman, John R. P.

Touche, George Alexander

Hills, John Waller

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Nield, Herbert

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Hoare, S. J. G.

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Hohler, G. F.

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

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Horner, Andrew Long

Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Perkins, Walter Frank

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Peto, Basil Edward

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Hunt, Rowland

Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Randles, Sir John S.

Winterton, Earl

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rees, Sir J. D.

Wolmer, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Royds, Edmund

Worthington Evans, L.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Sanderson, Lancelot

Lewisham, Viscount

Sandys, G. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Evelyn Cecil and Sir Philip Sassoon.

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

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

Committee report Progress, to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Estate Duty.
  Estate Duty.
  Estate Duty (Cost of Replanting).
  Estate Duty (Cost of Replanting).
  Civil Servants (Holiday Leave).
  Civil Servants (Holiday Leave).
  Mineral Eights Duty.
  Mineral Eights Duty.
  Charge of Taking Forcible Possession (Lisdoonvarna).
  Charge of Taking Forcible Possession (Lisdoonvarna).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Royal Garrison Artillery (Death of Gunner Hartney).
  Royal Garrison Artillery (Death of Gunner Hartney).
  Garrison Staff (Discharge to Pension).
  Garrison Staff (Discharge to Pension).
  Ocean Island, West Pacific (Pacific Phosphate Company).
  Ocean Island, West Pacific (Pacific Phosphate Company).
  Paper Currency Reserve (India).
  Paper Currency Reserve (India).
  Cruelty to Animals (Prosecutions).
  Cruelty to Animals (Prosecutions).
  Public Meetings in Open Places.
  Public Meetings in Open Places.
  Lanarkshire Collieries (Rescue Stations).
  Lanarkshire Collieries (Rescue Stations).
  Tuberculosis Treatment.
  Tuberculosis Treatment.
  Vaccination (East Grinstead Guardians).
  Vaccination (East Grinstead Guardians).
  Agricultural Research.
  Agricultural Research.
  Movement of Cattle.
  Movement of Cattle.
  Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty (Grants).
  Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty (Grants).