Sitting of 14 July 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Hightown Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill [Lords],
Motherwell Water and Sewage Purification Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Sheffield Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Swindon Corporation (Wilts and Berks Canal Abandonment) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Special Orders, dated 14th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1912 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 351.]
Copy presented of Special Orders, dated 14th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1912, (No. 4) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 352.]
Copy presented of Special Orders, dated 14th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly; entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1913 (No. 5) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 353.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 13th July, 1914, providing for a new election of the Committee on Secondary Education for various districts in Scotland appointed by the Minute of 24th July, 1911, as amended by the Minute of 5th February, 1913, and altering the constitution of certain of the Committees [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
Copy presented of Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1913 (Preliminary Statement) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5342 and 5344 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (SANITARY MEASURES).
Copy presented of Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those belonging to local authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1913 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 137, of Session 1914.)"—[Mr. Robertson.]
Return ordered "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to local Authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 138, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Robertson.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address "for Return showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1913, under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 270, of Session 1913)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Hague Conference.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions made by the United States of America for the formation of an International Committee to prepare for the third Hague Conference have yet been finally approved by His Majesty's Government; whether they have received the assent of any other Powers; whether the proposed Inter-departmental Committee to advise His Majesty's Government as to the views to be put forward at the Conference on behalf of this country has yet been formed; what Member of the Cabinet is to preside over it; and whether the date of the Conference has yet been fixed?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): His Majesty's Government expressed themselves as favourable to the object of the proposals of the United States Government some time ago, but intimated that it was in their opinion essential, in order that the Committee might be able to cope satisfactorily with the work entrusted to it, that its members should not be too numerous. We have not heard what views other Powers have expressed on
  1680
  the proposals of the United States Government, but on the 29th ultimo we received an invitation from the Netherland Government to send a representative to an International Committee to meet at The Hague on 1st June, 1915. We are accepting this invitation, but with the same comment as we made respecting the proposal of the United States Government. In accordance with the resolution passed by The Hague Conference of 1907, the next Conference should meet not earlier than two years after the assembly of the International Committee. The constitution of the British Committee has now been settled. It will be presided over by the Attorney-General, and commence its labours very shortly.

  Sir Ronald Ross (Petition).
  Mr. COWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has received a petition to the House from Sir Ronald Ross, K.C.B., F.R.S., asking for compensation for loss in his profession incurred through his long-continued investigations on malaria; whether the petition is based upon the precedents of similar petitions successfully submitted to the House by Dr. Edward Jenner in 1802 and again in 1807, and by George William Manby in 1823; and whether he will commend Sir Ronald Ross's petition, as required by Standing Order 66, in order to enable it to be laid before the House?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have received the petition referred to, but I have not felt justified in taking the course suggested, which is not in accordance with modern usage.

  Settlement Estate Duty.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked what is the total amount received by the National Exchequer through the operation of the Settlement Estate Duty, 1894; and the amount which would have been received on these estates if, instead, only Death Duties had been paid?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The amount of Settlement Estate Duty paid in 1894–5 was about £20,000, but I regret that I can make no estimate of the amount of Estate Duty which would have been chargeable since that date in respect of the estates which paid Settlement Estate Duty at that date if the provisions in regard to settled estates had not been in operation.

  FINANCE BILL.

    NURSING GRANT.
    Major HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Budget Grant in aid of nursing will be applied for the benefit of insured persons and their dependents only; and whether he has yet decided on any scheme for the distribution and administration of this Grant?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 6th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire.
    Major HOPE: Before any scheme is made final with regard to the administration of this Grant will it be laid before the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a large number of resolutions in favour of placing the Nursing Grant at the disposal of the Insurance Commissioners; and when he is likely to be in a position to say whether he is likely to accede to these requests?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have received a number of such resolutions. With regard to the administration of the Grant, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire on the 6th instant.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: Are we to understand that the Scottish Office takes up no definite attitude of its own with regard to the allocation of these duties as between the Scottish local authorities and the Scottish Insurance Committee?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that is a correct inference from my answer.
    Mr. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what the attitude of the Scottish Office is?
    Mr. HOGGE: Shall we have some information before the close of this Session?
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any resolutions to the contrary effect?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I was not asked that question, and I am afraid I cannot answer it without notice.
    Mr. KING: Would not all these questions be much better answered on the Scottish Estimates?
    Mr. W. WATSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the matter will be settled, and what opportunity there will be before it is settled of making representations to the Scottish Office or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course the matter is primarily one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my hon. and learned Friend must question him on the subject.
    Major HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have just asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question, and he was unable to give an answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should give some of the other countries a chance.

    MOTOR SPIRIT DUTY.
    Major HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet decided when he will be able to meet the deputation representing the Scottish mineral oil trade on the subject of taxation of Home-produced motor spirit?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have suggested to the Scottish Mineral Oil Association that having regard to the very technical nature of this subject it would be useful if in the first instance they would be good enough to arrange an interview with my official advisers.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    STATE-MANAGED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. BOOTHasked if schemes for the formation of State-managed societies dealing specially with married women and with other selected classes of insured persons are in course of preparation; and when the House will be taken into the confidence of the Government?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Commissioners of National Health Insurance are still considering the formation of a State-managed

    1683
    society for a portion of the deposit contributors; and if the promised consultation with existing societies has yet taken place, and with what result?
    Mr. W. BENN: The Commissioners have conferred with the Advisory Committee on the subject of the future of deposit contributors, which is still under consideration.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask my hon. Friend, in consulting the Advisory Committee, to see to it that it shall not consist entirely of representatives of approved societies?
    Mr. W. BENN: Consultation with the Advisory Committee is certainly a consultation with authorised representatives of approved societies.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Advisory Committee is not an assembly of approved societies, but includes members of county committees and employers of labour, and can in no sense be regarded as an assembly of approved societies?
    Mr. W. BENN: All I said was that on the Advisory Committee approved societies are authoritatively represented, and that is so.
    Mr. BOOTH: What reply did the representatives of approved societies on that Advisory Committee give to the Government?
    Mr. W. BENN: I cannot say anything about what transpired. I simply say a consultation took place.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I express the hope that His Majesty's Government will above all remember the pledge given to revise the position of the deposit contributors?

    CHEMISTS' ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the Insurance Commissioners have reason to believe that in several areas the amounts of the panel chemists' accounts for drugs supplied in the first quarter of the year are greater than for the corresponding quarter of the previous year; and what action they propose to take so that the chemists may get paid for the drugs they supply on the doctors' orders?
    Mr. W. BENN: As I stated in a previous reply to the hon. Member, the Commissioners are informed that in some cases an increase is shown. The question as to the causes of the increase and as to any steps which may be necessary is receiving careful attention.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister whether Mr. Masterman is the Minister at present in charge of the proposed Amending Insurance Bill; and to what Member of the Government will the conduct of this measure before the House be entrusted?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will make a statement as to the Amending Insurance Bill on Friday.

  INDIA.

    Mr. CHANNING ARNOLD (LIBEL ACTION).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now give any further information as to the civil action for £1,000 damages which is being brought against Mr. Channing Arnold by Captain Finnie, a member of the Civil Service in Burma; whether the action has lately been taken from the postponed list and put down for hearing before Mr. Radford Young on 18th August; whether the action is in respect of an alleged libel for which Mr. Arnold has already been tried and convicted in a criminal court and has suffered four months' imprisonment; and whether the taking of these further proceedings against him by a Government official, supported by Government funds and with the assistance of a Government advocate, has the sanction of the Secretary of State?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): The Secretary of State understands that Captain Finnie considers his character to be vindicated by the criminal conviction of Mr. Arnold for defamation, upheld on appeal to the Privy Council, and is applying to the Chief Court for leave to withdraw his suit. The Secretary of State has not interfered, as he would be unwilling to deprive a public servant of his legal remedy, and Captain Finnie's decision is a voluntary one.

    PRESS ACT.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when he expects to receive a full report of the case

    1685
    recently tried before the Punjab Chief Court, in which the keeper of the Zamindar Press of Lahore appealed against a declaration of forfeiture made by the Government of the Punjab under the Press Act; and whether, in view of the reports that have already been received showing the character of the articles in respect of which the declaration was made and the penalties involved, the Secretary of State is prepared to give some further consideration to the matter?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on the 7th instant. A full report of the judgment is expected next week, and pending its receipt the Secretary of State must reserve his opinion on the points raised in the latter part of the question.
    Mr. MORRELLasked whether it has been established that an applicant who appeals to the Courts under the Press Act, 1910, for relief against fine and forfeiture must show not merely that the words of his pamphlet or article are not likely to bring any section of His Majesty's subjects in India into hatred or contempt, but that it is impossible for the words in question, either directly or indirectly, to have that tendency; whether this has been described by an eminent judge in India as an almost hopeless task; and whether, in view of the harshness of these provisions and of the discontent that has been aroused, the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of discontinuing further proceedings against the Press until this Act has been modified or repealed?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State is advised that the judgment to which the hon. Member apparently refers need not be held to have established anything more than the validity of the forfeiture under Section 12 of the Indian Press Act of the particular publication in respect of which an appeal had been preferred. He is unable to say how far the terms of the judgment are applicable to cases under other Sections of the Act, or are likely to be followed by other High Courts, and he is unable to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
    Mr. MORRELL: In case it turns out that this ruling is considered applicable to all cases, will the Secretary of State reconsider his points with a view to modifying the law?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: No, I do not think it can be considered applicable to all cases.

    Scottish Fisheries.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that in the early spring of this year the county council of Zetland drew the attention of the Fishery Board for Scotland to the fact that large shoals of herrings had been located to the north and west of Shetland and asked the Board to note the effect on these shoals when the whaling operations started, and that in their reply the Fishery Board immediately took up an un sympathetic attitude in regard to the depredations of the foreign whalers by stating that though these shoals might move from the grounds it would not necessarily follow that such movement was due to whaling operations; and whether, in view of the fact that immediately whaling operations started the said shoals of herrings did disappear from the fishing grounds referred to, he will draw the attention of the Fishery Board to the need for giving better attention to the injury being done to the great British herring fishery by foreign whaling companies?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the communication from the county council of Zetland to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am unable to accept as accurate his description of the Fishery Board's attitude or his suggestion that depredations are being committed and injury being done to the herring fishery. I am informed that the herrings did not disappear from the grounds referred to on the commencement of the whaling operations, but that several substantial catches have been obtained on the western grounds during the whaling season.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that, owing to the depletion of the herrings and cod fishing grounds off Norway, caused by whale fishing, the Norwegian fishermen burned down the whaling stations in the country, and that whaling in the northern parts of Norway was subsequently prohibited by law, that as a result several Norwegian whaling companies erected whaling stations in Shetland in 1903 and 1904, that since whaling operations began and extended in Shetland the herring fishing on the west and north of Shetland, on which many fishermen and their families depend for a livelihood, has rapidly declined, and that this decrease is due to the depredations of the foreign whalers; and whether he is prepared to

    1687
    introduce legislation prohibiting the landing of whales in any part of Scotland, in the interests of the herring industry, and in order to prevent further depopulation of the fishermen crofter class in the Shetland Islands?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The matters to which my hon. Friend refers are highly controversial, and I am not prepared to accept the inferences which he draws. With regard to legislation, I see no reason to suppose that a measure on the lines suggested is necessary or desirable.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that under the Whaling Act of 1908, a sum of about £6,000 has bean collected by the Fishery Board in the form of whaling licence fees from whaling companies operating in Shetland; that this money has accrued to the Treasury; and whether the Government is prepared to refund from this money to the Fishery Board a sum sufficient to enable the Board to place a vessel or vessels in Shetland waters for the purposes of investigation as to the movements or presence of shoals of herrings in the area of waters alleged to be depleted of herrings by the operations of foreign whalers, in order that the facts as to the effects of whaling on the herring fishing may be more clearly demonstrated?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The facts with regard to the amount and the accrual of the whaling licence fees are as stated by my hon. Friend. The statements which have been made in support of the allegations to which he refers do not appear to afford primâ facie ground for a special inquiry such as he suggests, but the Fishery Board will be prepared to consider any information bearing on the subject which may be submitted to them.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask how far this matter is receiving the attention of the authorities interested?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course, the whole matter was considered by a Committee some years ago, and it was on the Report of that Committee that legislation was carried.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great consensus of opinion that whaling does interfere with the herring fishing industry?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe that a great many herring fishermen are of that opinion, but the reasons they give are very contradictory.
    Captain WARINGasked whether the investigations of the Scottish Departmental Committee on North Sea Fisheries covered the whole of Scotland; and, if so, what object the Fishery Board seems to attain by the appointment of a Departmental Committee to investigate the conditions on the west and north coasts?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Departmental Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in the first portion of his question covered the whole of Scotland so far as certain general questions were concerned: the Fishery Board's investigation relates particularly to certain special questions such as transport facilities and the marketing of certain classes of fish in regard to which the inshore fisheries of the west and north coasts are conducted under special disadvantages.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what the fishermen want is the carrying into effect of the recommendations already made by the Committee?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of that.
    Captain WARING: May I ask if this inquiry will extend to the south coast of the Moray Firth?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have already explained in my answer that the inquiry is to deal with certain difficulties as to transport and sale. These do not affect that part of the coast.

    Small Landholders (Scotland).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that only tenants and leaseholders occupying their holdings under tenancies which were in force when the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act of 1911 came into operation are entitled to be declared small landholders or statutory small tenants under the Act; whether he is aware that many such tenants have been, and are being, induced to enter into new leases of dates subsequent to the commencement of the Act, and are thereby permanently disqualified for applying to the Land Court in respect of their present

    1689
    holdings; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure to all Scottish small holders the right to apply to the Land Court in order to obtain security of tenure and fair or equitable rents?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland have no knowledge of the action referred to in the second part. It is competent to contract out of the Act, but any person has the right to apply for a new holding. The rights mentioned in the last part of the question are already secured to small holders and no further steps are necessary.
    Mr. WATT: Is it the case that these men are perfectly disqualified from applying?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked how many applications have been made under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, for new holdings and enlargements up to and including 30th June, 1914; and how many of those have not got beyond the stage of application?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Up to and including 30th June, 1914, there have been 5,215 applications for new holdings under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and 3,784 applications for enlargements, making a total of 8,999. Of these, 1,964 have either been withdrawn or rejected because the applicants were unsuitable or because the land applied for was not available. Of the remainder, about 5,470 have not yet been provided for by any schemes adopted by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, but all these except 1,364 have been interviewed. The classification of the applications according to counties necessitates a number of figures, and I propose to circulate that table with the Votes.
    Mr. WILLIAM WATSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how many new holdings have been created?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That does not arise out of the answer. I have not the latest information with me.

    National Galleries (Scotland).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the success attending the appointment of a special demonstrator at the Royal Scottish Museum, he will consider the
    1690
    advisability of extending the innovation to the national galleries?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the Board of Trustees will consider the suggestion made in the question.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether the Local Government Board are now negotiating with a public utility company for building at Rosyth; if so, which company it is, and who it is made up of; how much building it involves; the total area of the scheme; and (2) whether, before the negotiations for a public company developing Rosyth are completed, the details of the scheme will be submitted to this House in order that it can be discussed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Local Government Board for Scotland are considering the steps which will fall to be taken by them when the Housing Bill becomes law, but I am not in a position to make any statement of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend at present.
    Mr. HOGGE: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that before an agreement is made—assuming that it is to be made—with the public utility company, involving, probably, a credit of £1,000,000, we in this House will have some knowledge of the details under which the company is going to act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I shall be very glad to give any information in my power. As my hon. Friend is aware, Rosyth is an urgent case, and steps will have to be taken there as soon as the Bill is passed into law.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking in this House—
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to give notice that as the House is not to have an opportunity of discussing the scheme I will raise this question on the Adjournment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Gentleman might raise it on the Bill.
    Mr. HOGGE: Yes, but you will put the Government Whips on.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will not consider the advisability of saving 1 per cent. by dispensing with the company?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think the matter can be settled in that very short way.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Will the scheme apply to the whole area or only to the Admiralty part of the property?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We are only dealing with Government property and Government employés.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask how long this scheme will be delayed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A great deal will depend upon when the Bill passes.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is the Scottish Office of Works in any way responsible for it?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Bill provides that in certain contingencies the Scottish Office of Works may be called in.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in the event of the negotiations for a public company developing Rosyth falling through, the Admiralty or the Local Government Board will build; whether, in that case, the building will be under the rules and regulations of the Local Government Board but organised by the Office of Works; and whether in that case they will be supervised by the new principal architect which it is proposed should take the post now held by Mr. Oldrieve, or whether, this being a Scottish undertaking, some special office will be created within his own Department to deal with it?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Housing Bill which is presently before Parliament does not confer upon the Local Government Board for Scotland any power to build houses for Government employés, and the second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that, should the negotiations with the Public Utility Company fall through, the building will be supervised by the Office of Works, and, if that is so, is it true that the Office of Works in Scotland has been degraded in status without the change being discussed in this House?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a question which my hon. Friend must address to the representative of the Office of Works.
    Mr. PIRIE: Does the Secretary for Scotland say that, in his official capacity, he does not safeguard the interests of Scotland when they are at stake?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not say so.
    Mr. PIRIE: You implied so. Let us have a straight answer for once.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Are the houses to be available only for Government servants?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is a purely Admiralty scheme.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to see some of the privileges of Scotland with regard to the Scottish Office of Works filched away from him during his unfortunate tenure of office?

    PERSIAN GULF OPERATIONS (MEDAL).
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state when the medal for general services in operations carried out by His Majesty's Navy in the Persian Gulf in the years 1909–12 will be granted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I have already stated, a medal is being struck and will shortly be available for distribution.
    Mr. WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware this question has now been going on for two years, and if, instead of "shortly," he can give a definite date for this medal for those men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret the delay, but the question of Grants in lieu of prize money has also been involved and under consideration, and that has involved correspondents with two other Departments, but the matter will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
    Mr. LEE: Why is it that those delays always occur with medals, which sometimes are not issued for many years?
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman extend the medals to the year 1913–14 for men doing the same duty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will consider that.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the medal be issued this year?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope so.

    Housing, West Benhar.
    Major HOPEasked whether, under the Government Housing Bill, it will be competent for the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to takeover the houses which are to be built by the local authority at West Benhar if the local authority so desire; and wheher it will be competent for the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to build houses in the future in other similar districts which are partly agricultural and partly industrial?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The powers which it is proposed to confer upon the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the conditions upon which they may be exercised are set forth in Clause 1 of the Bill. I am not in a position to anticipate the decision of the Departments concerned in specific or general cases.

    Education (Scotland).
    Major HOPEasked whether the whole of the £71,000 Grant, under the Budget for education in Scotland this year, will be distributed among secondary education committees in accordance with Section 16 (2) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, or whether any and, if so, how much of this Grant will be absorbed by prior charges under Section 16 (1) of the Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope to be able to lay before Parliament in the course of this week a statement showing the proposed application of the Education (Scotland) Fund for the current year, including the sum of £71,000 to which the hon. Member refers.

    Inshore Fisheries (Scotland).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state why, in appointing a Departmental Committee to investigate the conditions of inshore fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland limited the scope of such inquiry to the west and north coasts and outer islands of Scotland; and whether he will take steps to secure the extension of the remit to the Committee so as to include the investigation of the equally serious condition of inshore fisheries on the east coast of Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As I explained in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire n the 7th instant, the Committee referred to was not appointed by me, but was appointed by the Fishery Board for Scotland, and
    1694
    consists of members of the Board and its staff. The purpose of the Committee is to investigate questions such as transport facilities and the marketing of certain classes of fish, in regard to which the inshore fisheries of the west and north coasts and of the outer islands are conducted under special disadvantages. On the east coast, as my hon. Friend is aware, the deep-sea herring fishery is the main fishery, but if there are special points in connection with the inshore fisheries which require investigation, the Fishery Board will be prepared to consider any representation regarding them.
    Mr. COWAN: Does the scope of this Committee's inquiry include the granting of State loans to fishermen?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.

    Land Court Appeals (Scotland).
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked how many appeals have been lodged by land lords to the Court of Session against the decisions of the Land Court in the matter of rent reductions to small landholders and statutory small tenants, and the result in each case?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No appeal is competent against a decision of the Land Court fixing rent.
    Mr. W. YOUNGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that statutory small tenants and small landholders applying for rent reductions are financially unable to defend appeals by landlords to the Court of Session on points of law, he is prepared to authorize or advise the authorisation of the payment of expenses of respondents in vexatious and unwarranted appeals?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question of expense is a matter for the Court of Session to decide. If an appeal were vexatious and unwarranted the Court of Session would, I imagine, award expenses to the successful respondent.
    Mr. YOUNG: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that promise is carried out?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I have no control over the Court of Session in Scotland.

    Hampton Court Palace.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it has yet been possible

    1695
    to make arrangements for the free admission of the public to Hampton Court Palace on Saturdays and bank holidays for any part of the day?
    Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner fears that effect cannot, with safety, be given to this suggestion. The numbers who now visit Hampton Court on these days are already as large as can adequately be controlled.

    Foreign Companies.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that within the past few years attempts have been made to float in England the following companies, namely, Fanning Island, Limited, the Central Railway Company of Canada, the Montreal Central Terminal Company, the Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railway and Piers Company; can he say whether the prospectuses of any, and, if so, which of these companies have been filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies; whether his Department exercises any control over foreign companies such as the Central Railway Company of Canada and the Montreal Central Terminal Company, which are incorporated abroad; and, seeing that the Dominion Government and the Agents General of Ontario and Quebec were obliged publicly to correct certain misrepresentations of fact made in the prospectus of the Central Railway Company of Canada, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation enabling him to protect British investors against unscrupulous promoters of foreign companies?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): I am aware that prospectuses were issued by Fanning Island, Limited, in March, 1912, by the Central Railway Company of Canada in July, 1911, and in April, 1914; and by the Montreal Central Terminal Company in June, 1914, but I have no information as to the issue of any prospectus by the Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railway and Piers Company. Fanning Island, Limited, is the only one of these companies which is registered under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and is, therefore, the only company which is required to file a prospectus with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. The prospectus issued by that company was duly filed with the Registrar. Every company
    1696
    incorporated outside the United Kingdom which establishes a place of business within the United Kingdom's required by Section 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, to file certain information with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. As at present advised, I do not propose to introduce legislation extending the provisions of Section 274.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Fanning Island, Limited, promoted by Sir Thomas H. C. Troubridge, Bart., and Mr. C. H. Armstrong, in March, 1912, was incorporated under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908; will he say whether a copy of the prospectus then issued was filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies; and whether this company has filed an annual balance sheet in accordance with the Companies Act, or held any meetings of directors and shareholders?
    Mr. BURNS: Fanning Island, Limited, was incorporated under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, on the 19th March, 1912, and a prospectus dated the 20th March, 1912, was filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on that day. I have no knowledge who were the promoters of the company. No balance sheet has been filed by the company, and the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies has been informed that the company did not proceed to allotment, and that the subscription money received in respect of applications for shares was returned. In these circumstances it is probable that no meetings of shareholders have been held, but I have no information on this point or as to any meetings of directors.

    Escalators at Railway Stations.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the Board of Trade have approved of the proposed (and in some cases nearly finished) escalators now being substituted for lifts at certain railway stations in London; if the Board intend to permit the lifts to be abolished at any deep stations where escalators are being constructed; and, if so, what means of transit up and down it is proposed to provide for elderly, short-sighted, lame, and invalid persons whose different employment obliged them to use the various underground railways?
    Mr. BURNS: Lifts are retained in use at some stations where escalators have

    1697
    been constructed; at others escalators have been constructed at the outset instead of lifts, and stairways are also available. If the hon. Member will indicate any particular station at which he is of opinion that inconvenience is or may be caused, I will look into the matter.

  POST OFFICE.

    HEBDEN BRIDGE OFFICE.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Postmaster-General what are the units of work figures relating to the Hebden Bridge Post Office and the cost of living index number for that town adjusted to the common standards; and what are the units and index number necessary to place that office in Class III.
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The volume of work at Hebden Bridge now amounts to 44 units. No investigation has been made by the Board of Trade into the cost of living in that town, but judged by analogy with neighbouring towns the cost of living in Hebden Bridge is not above normal. According to the standard of classification in force 240 units would be required to warrant Class III. scales, but the whole question of the classification of provincial offices for scales of pay of outdoor force is under consideration.

    UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY.
    Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked what progress has been made with the Post Office underground electric railway, and how much money has been spent upon its construction up to date?
    Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to invite tenders for the construction of the tunnel, and an experimental track is being constructed on War Office property, so that certain tests may be carried out before inviting tenders for electrical equipment. Up to the present date, therefore, no money has been spent upon actual construction.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is this an extension of the system recently established between the Front Opposition Bench and the Whips' Room?
    Captain NORTON: I do not understand the question.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I mean between the Government Bench and the Whips' Room?
    Captain NORTON: I do not understand the question.

    Manufacturers' Prices.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Attorney-General if his attention has been directed to the existence of agreements between manufacturers on the one hand and retail tradesmen on the other, by virtue of which the former bind down the latter not to sell goods to the public for less than a definite fixed price; and whether, in view of the artificial raising of prices caused by the widespread practice of this trade policy, he will advise proceedings to be taken to test the legality of the practice, as it has been tested in the United States of America?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): I regret that I do not know what kind of proceedings my hon. Friend refers to. I cannot advise the Crown to take proceedings unless illegality appears to exist.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send in specific instances of this particular practice?
    Sir STANLEY BUCKMASTER: I have no objection to receiving particulars of any instances which the hon. Member may forward.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these proceedings have been taken in the United States of America in the Supreme Court?
    Mr. HUNT: Is the practice of keeping up prices portion of the Free Trade system of this country?

    Income Tax.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked under what Act and Section of the Income Tax Acts the concession of average is made to some employés of limited liability companies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is open to question whether subordinate employés of limited liability companies should not be assessed under Schedule D, in which case they would be legally entitled to the benefit of the average. In these circumstances the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have not objected to the application of the average under Schedule E where the District Commissioners see fit to grant it. I may add that the practice has been in force for forty years.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Then there is no statutory authority?
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the present staff in the repayments branch will deal with the claims in respect of the excess Income Tax; whether it will be necessary to increase the staff in any way; and whether any estimate has been made of the cost of dealing with the additional claims resulting from the reduction of the rate of Income Tax?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second and third parts in the negative.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CANTEEN CASE.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Attorney-General whether, seeing that Mr. Justice Darling stated on the 27th May, when delivering sentence on the defendants in the Army Canteen case, that he, the learned judge, was satisfied that the defendants were acting upon a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, he will say whether he has laid the papers in this case before the Public Prosecutor, with a view to criminal proceedings for fraud and bribery being instituted against Sir Thomas Lipton, chairman of Liptons, Limited, and his co-directors
    Sir STANLEY BUCKMASTER: All the papers in this case have been before me and proceedings have already been taken against those persons against whom evidence existed, including one director of the company. There is no such evidence in the case of the director named in the question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that the learned judge, in the presence of the Attorney-General, stated that he was satisfied that the system was known to the directors and encouraged by them, and persisted in by them; and may I ask whether, having regard to that statement, the Law Officers of the Crown cannot find even a primâ facie case? Does the Solicitor-General not think that the directors are going to take all the steps they can to cover their trail?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The statement of the learned judge must be read in connection with the whole statement, and whether the learned judge was satisfied or not is not a question for the Law Officers.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it intended to proceed against the other defendants who were cited before the court martial?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I must have notice of that question.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that no further proceedings of any kind are to be taken in connection with this case?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: So far as I know there is no evidence before the Law Officers to justify any proceedings being taken against any other person.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that the Law Officers pressed for imprisonment against the persons who received the bribes, while the persons who gave the bribes were not sent to prison?

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the shortage of men in the Territorial Army, he will take steps in the near future to permit all non-commissioned officers and men attending camp for seven days to draw separation allowances?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I regret that I can give no undertaking of the nature suggested.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary for War whether recruits in the Territorial Force who have not done the whole of their preliminary drills will be allowed to go to camp this year; and, if so, will they be allowed to draw the £1 bounty in addition to their fifteen days' pay if they remain the full fifteen days?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, provided that they have completed the drills which recruits are required to perform before camp.

    EX-SAILORS AND EX-SOLDIERS (PENSION).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary for War if he will use his influence with the Treasury to induce those responsible for the Estimates for the next financial year to include a sufficient sum to permit all Government Departments concerned to allow ex-sailors and ex-soldiers of good character to count their years of service in the Navy or Army for pension with their subsequent years of service in the less onerous Civil service, so that British sailors and soldiers will be placed on an equal footing with Civil servants with regard to pension, and so that the recommendation of the Committee appointed by

    1701
    the War Office to report upon this question may be carried out?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret to be unable to adopt this suggestion.

    RE-ENGAGED MEN.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary for War whether the rule limiting the total number of re-engaged men to 10 per cent. of the strength of units is still in force; and, if not, from what date has it been discontinued?
    Mr. TENNANT: The regulation on the subject has not been altered, but I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division on the 19th May.
    Mr. AMERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the fact that many men who were informed on enlistment that they could re-engage have been excluded by virtue of this rule; and whether it is good for recruiting that the legitimate expectations of the men should be disappointed in that way?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is the case that many men have been disappointed, because in very few units have the number applying come up to 10 per cent.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN (INDIA).
    Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary for War whether a bounty of £16 is being offered to time-expired men in India to induce them to re-engage?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question put by the hon. Member for Bath on the 6th instant.
    Mr. AMERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many men secured the bounty, and how many men are still required?
    Mr. TENNANT: I shall be glad to give the information on notice.

    RESERVISTS.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary for War whether Reservists are being invited to re-engage in the Regular Army at Home; and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions; and if he will state what other measures are being taken in order to deal with the question of the shortage that exists in the Regular Army at Home and in India?
    Mr. TENNANT: A question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian on this subject was answered yesterday. To what I said then I would add that the qualifications for a man rejoining are that he must be unmarried, medically fit, must have two years unexpired service, and must have been awarded a military character of not less than "fair" when he left the Colours. In reply to the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for West Marylebone on the 1st instant.
    Mr. AMERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men have been secured for the Service?
    Mr. TENNANT: Not without notice.

    HANTS SPECIAL RESERVE BATTALION.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary for War whether the permission of the Adjutant-General for the Hants Special Reserve battalion to recruit in Woolwich and Stratford was given as a result of the commanding officer Special Reserve battalion having represented that the recruits necessary to bring the Special Reserve battalion up to strength could not be obtained within the county of Hampshire?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.

    COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (INDIA).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware of the inconvenience and detriment to discipline caused by the fact that commissioned officers, For reasons of personal economy, are often, on their outward and home journey to India and the Far East, compelled to travel second-class on the steamship and share cabin and other accommodation with non-commissioned officers sometimes of their own battery, regiment, or battalion; and whether, in view of the small salary earned by the commissioned ranks of the Regular forces, a first-class passage at second-class or reduced rate on such journeys will be arranged for?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question has been considered on more than one occasion, but it is not thought advisable to reopen it at the present time.
    Mr. NEWMAN: When was the question considered last—how many years ago?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it was in recent years, perhaps two years ago. I am not quite certain.

    WAR DEPARTMENT VESSEL.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the War Department vessel the "Sir Robert Hay" was used on the 4th instant to take a party, composed of the members of the Warrant Officers' Club, their wives, and friends, on a pleasure trip; whether he is aware that each member of the crew had to work 10 hours' overtime, for which they were paid at the rate of 1¾d. per hour; and whether he will give instructions that these men be paid at the proper rate for the overtime worked?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): I have inquired into this and find that the hon. Member has been misinformed as to the amount of overtime worked. It amounted to 3¾ hours. The crew has been credited with extra pay of 1s. 6d. per man, that being the sum due under Regulations.

    Tonypandy Riots.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the statement that the Metropolitan Police officers who were sent to South Wales during the Tonypandy troubles in November, 1910, and February, 1911, received the whole of the allowance due to them does not accord with the views of the men concerned; and will he say whether he proposes to take any further steps to clear up the discrepancy of view so as to remove any feeling on the part of the men that their case has not received the consideration it deserves and that they have been unjustly treated?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Commissioner informs me that he has received no such representation from the men concerned. A constable sent for duty outside the Metropolitan Police district is ordinarily entitled to subsistence allowance and lodging allowance, if food and lodging are not provided. On this occasion the men were provided with ample food, so that there was no question of their drawing the subsistence allowance. They were also provided with lodging, but as the lodgings were indifferent, special authority was obtained for payment of the lodging allowance. The Commissioner felt, however, that the arduous and often dangerous duty which the men were called upon to perform demanded some special recognition, and
    1704
    with my predecessor's approval further special allowances were given to all ranks. In addition to his ordinary pay, every constable accordingly received allowances amounting to 49s. a week for the first ten days, and during the rest of the strike allowances of 35s. a week, besides free food and lodging.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to receive representations?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is a subsequent question down.
    Sir J. D. REES: If similar circumstances arise, will the Metropolitan Police be sent to perform similar duties again?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must wait until the occasion arises.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Metropolitan Police authorities have had any controversy with the Glamorganshire authorities with reference to the cost of sending Metropolitan Police officers to do strike duty in the Tonypandy district; and if the Glamorganshire authorities have disputed the claim of the Scotland Yard authorities; and will he say if this circumstance has any bearing on the failure to satisfy the police officers who submitted to hardships on the understanding that they were to receive a special allowance?
    Mr. McKENNA: The difficulty with the Glamorganshire County Council in regard to the payment of the cost of the Metropolitan Police employed in no way affected the settlement of the legitimate claims of the officers concerned, which were met out of moneys voted by Parliament. If any officer who has not received the special allowance and all other sums due to him will make application to the Commissioner, the matter shall at once be inquired into; but it is believed that every officer concerned was paid some years ago.

    Building Employment (Housing Policy).
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the fact that the Census of England and Wales for 1911 shows that the number of persons employed in building and works of construction had fallen to 946,127 from 1,042,864 in 1901, a decrease of 9.3 per cent. in the ten years, and that this decline is confirmed by a considerable

    1705
    fall in the number of persons employed in brick-making and by the returns of books taken out under the Unemployment Section of the National Insurance Act; if he is aware that in 1911 the number of private dwelling-houses under erection was 38,178 against 61,909 in 1901, and that, at the present rate of new building construction, many generations must elapse before the dwelling-houses of England and Wales, the majority of which need to be replaced will be rebuilt; and, if, in view of these considerations, he can promise for the next Session of Parliament a much more active housing policy than has so far been announced by His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no reason to doubt the statistics given by my hon. Friend, but I must not be held as agreeing to all the inferences he draws from them. As regards the latter part of the question, I cannot at present give any pledge with regard to the business of next Session.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he now realises what was the result of the Land Tax?
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: These figures are down to 1911, when, as a matter of fact, the Land Taxes were not in operation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for arguing a matter of this sort.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have a question to put—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must really pass on. There are a great many questions.

    Chancellor of the Duchy.
    Mr. BARNSTONasked the Prime Minister if the Chancellor of the Duchy is to be permanently unrepresented in the House; and if no further attempt is to be made to find Mr. Masterman a seat in the House of Commons?
    Mr. HAYES FISHERasked whether there is any precedent for a Cabinet Minister who is responsible for administering an Act of Parliament and a Department of State which closely affects the lives and liberties of many millions of taxpayers being for some months without a seat in either House of Parliament, and therefore unable to answer to Parliament except through a Junior Lord of the Treasury who has no official connection with the Department concerned; and
    1706
    whether he will now say what action he intends to take to terminate this arrangement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There have been many years in which there was no representative of the Duchy of Lancaster in this House, namely, 1895 to 1902. I think the Insurance Commission is for the time ably represented in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), and that this arrangement may well continue until the end of the present Session.
    Mr. BARNSTON: Can he not make any effort to secure a seat?
    The PRIME MINISTER: He has made two already.
    Mr. WATT: Has the time not arrived to jettison Jonah, in view of the fact that nobody seems willing to swallow him but the whale?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ULSTER.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the Government would not consider the exclusion of Ulster and would meet force with force; and will he say whether the decision of the Government that the Army could not be used against Ulster till after a General Election has been reversed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called to the speech in question otherwise than by the hon. Member's question. As regards the latter branch I do not know to what the hon. Member refers, but in any case I can add nothing to what has already been stated in the House on this subject.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated in this House that the Army could not be used against Ulster until after a General Election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If it is on record, he stated it.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the exact position now held by General Macready in Ulster; whether this officer is still attached to the Irish command and, if so, in what capacity; and, if not, whether his civil appointment and duties are limited to the province of Ulster or extend over the whole island?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of General Macready's appointment have been published as a White Paper, and I would refer the hon. Member to it.
    Mr. AMERY: Is there any intention of sending General Macready to Ulster again?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I am bound to answer that.

    NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland by whose directions and by what authority Sergeant Morgan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary station at Lisryan, county Longford, proceeds with a file of his men to Coolarty, outside his district, to attend the drill practices of the Coolarty National Volunteer Corps; whether the sergeant takes this action by direction of the Government or of the local police officer; and whether the practice will now be discontinued?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I am informed by the police that a patrol of two men from Lisryan Station visit Coolarty which is in the district and where these drills take place. This is done in the ordinary course of duty, and there is nothing exceptional in this action of the police.
    Mr. FARRELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether this was done on the authority of the Government or on the authority of the officer himself?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It is a part of ordinary police duty.

    DEVOLUTION.
    Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether, after the Government of Ireland Bill has become Law, the Government proposes to proceed with a comprehensive scheme of further devolution in order to relieve the increasing pressure on the time of this House and thereby render it possible for financial and other business to be adequately discussed without frequent recourse to kangaroo closure, closure by compartments, and other similar devices operating to restrict free debate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech which I made on 10th May, 1912, in which I expressed my views on this subject, and to which I can at present add nothing.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question of Home Rule will have preference over the Resolution dealing with the House of Lords?

    Food Supply during War.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is building granaries for the purpose of keeping in the United Kingdom a sufficient supply of wheat to prevent starvation in the event of sudden war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I recently stated, the question of the food supply of the country in times of emergency is kept under continuous observation by the Government, and every possible precaution is taken. The whole question of supplies in war was reviewed by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in the Debate in this House on 13th May, 1914.
    Mr. HUNT: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated that everything possible was being done to prevent starvation in time of war, and that it was quite possible to build granaries to store the wheat, will the right hon. Gentleman say why he told the House an untruth?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any granaries have been built in Ulster? [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no war there."]

    Women in Parliament.
    Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that in opening the New South Wales Parliament on 7th July the Governor announced, among forthcoming legislation, a measure making women eligible to sit in Parliament; and whether, having regard to the services rendered by women as elected members of other public bodies in this country, as well as in certain legislative assemblies abroad, he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps, either coincidently with the introduction of a measure for the enfranchisement of women as Parliamentary electors or otherwise, to make it possible for women to be elected and to sit as Members of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I do not see my way to entertain my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    King's Bench Division.
    Mr. HERBERT CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now indicate those recommendations of the Royal Commission on the King's Bench Division which can be effected by administrative action, and the consideration of which was stated in the King's Speech on 10th February, 1914, to be already well advanced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am in communication with the Lord Chief Justice with a view to a statement in the House on the subject at an early date.
    Mr. HERBERT CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the observations made by Mr. Justice Bray, in addressing the grand jury at York City Assizes on 9th July, when he urged the grand jury to press Members of Parliament for the creation of more judges, and stated that the judges were unanimous in feeling that no Assize town should lose the privilege it now had of being visited by judged; and whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the propositions which are to be made for carrying into effect certain of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the King's Bench Division which require the concurrence of Parliament, as indicated in the King's Speech on 10th February, 1914?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called to the observations referred to otherwise than by the hon. Member's question. As regards the latter part of the question, as I recently stated, I doubt whether it will be possible to introduce proposals in Parliament for the purpose this Session.

    Police Weekly Rest-Day.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Home Secretary if he can now say whether all local authorities in England and Wales have granted one full day's rest in seven to all members of the various forces of police?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Act comes into force fully in all county boroughs on the 26th of this month, and the information I have received leads me to believe that the police authorities have already made arrangements to give all constables one day's rest in seven. I will, however, as soon as the date is reached, make inquiry in each case. Elsewhere the police authorities have shown themselves generally anxious to carry out the purpose of the
    1710
    Act, and, although it has not everywhere been practicable to give full effect to it, much has been done towards giving each man the weekly rest-day.

    Small-pox Outbreak (Rochdale).
    Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that of the first thirteen cases of small-pox in the outbreak at Milnrow, near Rochdale, only two were unvaccinated persons, ten vaccinated, and one revaccinated; whether this outbreak has again proved that whilst vast numbers of unvaccinated children escape the disease of small-pox, the comparatively fewer vaccinated persons in a community have been preferentially attacked; and whether any investigation has been made into the sanitary condition of a stream which runs near the mill at Milnrow, so many of the vaccinated employés of which have developed small-pox?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Thirteen cases were notified as small-pox at Milnrow. Two of these, however, proved to be measles. The eleven cases of small-pox all occurred among adults. One patient was unvaccinated; ten had been vaccinated in infancy; none revaccinated. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The investigation of the medical inspector was concerned with the source of the small-pox infection, and the evidence clearly pointed to the conclusion that infection originated within the mill where the above patients were employed. The sanitary condition of the stream running near this mill did not come within the scope of his inquiry; but I may say that I am advised that there are no epidemiological facts supporting the notion that small-pox can originate from such a source.
    Mr. A. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the stream was notorious for its evil smelling qualities, and cases of fever had been in the vicinity, and the local authority had a refuse tip close by and cases had been known of sanitary carts being emptied thereon; and is he aware that the tip had been on fire for seven weeks and the stench from it was at times unbearable, and that pigs were kept next door to inhabited houses in the vicinity?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be giving information.

    Notification of Births Act.
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in order to assist the working of the Notification of Births Act, he has any objection to the superintendent registrars handing to the parents who attend to register a birth a notice containing a short reference to the provisions of the Act; and, if he has no such objection, whether he could see his way to issue a circular to the various superintendent registrars calling their attention to the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In view of the fact that the notification under the Notification of Births Act has to be given within thirty-six hours of the birth of the child, while a period of six weeks is allowed for registration, I fear that the advantage of adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion would not compensate for the additional trouble caused.

    Free Libraries.
    Mr. KINGasked in how many cases a local authority which has adopted the Free Libraries Act has been allowed to reverse that decision and to divest itself of its commitments under the Act by selling its libraries for the best price that can be obtained?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no note of any such case.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has sanctioned the sale of land vested in the St. Pancras Borough Council for the purposes of the Public Libraries Act; whether the money arising from the sale is to be applied in the purchase of other land better adapted for those purposes; whether the land in question was to a large extent a gift to the council for public library purposes; what was the actual value of the land at the time of the purchase; what was the price paid by the council; what is the present amount of the outstanding loan; whether this loan will be repaid; and, if so, what conditions has the Local Government Board attached to the disposal of the balance of the money arising from the sale of the land?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have sanctioned the sale of the land in question for the best price that can be obtained for it. The sale proceeds are to be applied in repayment of the loan raised by the council in respect of the purchase of the land. I cannot state the actual value of
    1712
    the land at the time of the purchase, but I do not think that the land could be regarded as to a large extent a gift to the council. The price paid by the council was £13,500, of which £10,500 was for the freehold and £3,000 for the leasehold. The amount of the outstanding loan was £11,925 in October last. If there is any balance after repayment of that debt it will have to be disposed of for some capital purpose in a manner approved by the Local Government Board.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Andrew Carnegie offered a very large sum in connection with this scheme, and is that offer to be entirely lost to the people of St. Pancras?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The offer was withdrawn some little time ago.

    Widows (National Assistance).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the new law now in operation in Denmark which received the Danish Royal Assent on the 29th April, 1913, the principle of which is national assistance for widows in the task of bringing up healthy children for the nation; and if he will bring in a Bill to carry out the same objects?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received a resolution from the West Ham Guardians drawing my attention to the enactment in question. I am not in a position to make any promise of legislation on the subject.

    Office of Works (Committee).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if His Majesty's Office of Works will give instructions to have the Minority Report of the Committee of Inquiry of the architectural and engineering division of His Majesty's Office of Works laid upon the Table of this House, so that Members may have an opportunity of reading this Report in conjunction with the Majority Report already printed?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There was no Minority Report.

    Preventive Officers.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether the increments of preventive officers are smaller than those of any similar class of officers in the Civil Service; whether they have to wait until they are

    1713
    fifty years of age before they receive a salary of £150 per annum; whether, notwithstanding the finding of the Holt Committee regarding the abolition of the stripe system, preventive men are still subjected to the indignity of the star allowances; if this system delays the period for reaching the maximum salary until they have served for a period of twenty-five years; and whether preventive men have to wait twenty years before they have an opportunity to qualify for promotion to the grade of preventive officer?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There are many public servants on similar salaries with equal or smaller increments. A salary of £150 is reached after seven years in the grade irrespective of age. The finding of the Holt Committee had no reference to anything but the stripe system as it was in operation in the Post Office, and the continuance of the system of giving star allowances to preventive men was definitely recommended by the recent Committee on the Waterguard. As regards the fourth part of the question, the maximum salary of 36s. a week is attainable after twelve years' service, though the full number of stars cannot be obtained until after twenty-five. As regards the concluding part of the question, the junior preventive man summoned to the last Departmental examination had served just over eighteen years.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the actual price proposed by the Estates Commissioners to be offered to Mr. Shuldham for the untenanted lands of Ballymulvey, county Longford; whether this price was to be paid in cash or stock; whether in fact the offer was made at all or not; and, if not, will it now be made so as to give a chance for a bargain to be made?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): It would be contrary to the practice of the Estates Commissioners to give particulars of their estimated price at this stage of their negotiations. Under the Irish Land Act, 1909, the purchase money would be payable in Three Per Cent. Guaranteed Stock equal in nominal amount thereto. The Commissioners have intimated to the owner the price they are prepared to advance, but no formal offer has been made.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners
    1714
    are aware that on the sale of the Davoreen estate, at Killasama, county Longford, a sub-division of a small portion of untenanted lands took place, but the larger portion and mansion were left in Mr. Davoren's hands, who has been striving to sell it; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of the uneconomic tenant holders on the estate got practically no relief under the scheme, he will direct the Estates Commissioners to enter into communication with the owner and purchase the demesne for the purpose of giving those tenants whose farms are small some expansion of their existing holdings?
    Mr. RUSSELL: On the occasion of the sale of this estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903, about 200 acres of untenanted land, including bog, were vested in the purchasing tenants in addition to their holdings. The owner repurchased 160 acres in his occupation, with the residence thereon, under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, and the lands have been vested in him. Being already subject to an annuity under the Land Purchase Acts, the Commissioners have no power to make any further advance for the purchase of the lands vested in the owner.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst the police force in the Granard district over their treatment by the district inspector and head constable in charge; whether he will state the amount allowed him for horse upkeep and if any special allowance is made to this young cadet for his equestrian duties; and whether, in the event of a vacancy occurring in Ulster, he will transfer these two officers to another post?
    Mr. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend is not aware that there is any dissatisfaction amongst the Royal Irish Constabulary of the Granard district in regard to their treatment by the district inspector and head constable. The district inspector draws the ordinary forage allowance of £50 per annum for a horse, and £45 per annum for a man servant. No special allowance is made to him. He is a first-class district inspector of seventeen years' service. There is no intention to move either the district inspector or head constable from the district.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked how many appeals have been brought in Ireland by pension officers against the decisions of pension sub-committees since the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act, and how many of these appeals have been decided in favour of the claimants; and on what grounds was the application of Mrs. Barlow (No. 292, sub-committee No. 8, county Wexford) refused?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The total number of appeals received from pension officers up to the 31st March last was 57,511. The statistics kept by the Local Government Board do not enable them to state how many of these appeals were decided in favour of claimants or pensioners, but out of the total of 70,613 appeals received (including appeals from claimants and pensioners as well as pension officers) 13,231 were decided in favour of claimants or pensioners. Bridget Barlow's claim was refused by the Board after investigation by one of their inspectors on the ground that her means exceeded the statutory limit.

    Albania.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: I beg to ask the Foreign Secretary a question of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether Kortcha, Klisuro, and Tepelini have not been occupied by organised forces chiefly composed of Greek subjects; whether the occupation of these places has not been accompanied by considerable violence and cruelty; and, further, to ask whether the Greek Government has taken any steps to prevent the organising and arming of the forces operating in Epirus; and whether it is not a fact that many members of these forces are on the active list of the Greek Army, and if there is any step that can be taken to prevent further outrages of this character?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): My information is limited to a report received from the British delegate on the International Commission in Albania that Koritsa has been occupied by a body described as being composed of insurgents and Epirotes acting in concert. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Athens states that the Greek Government have urged the Espirotes to evacuate Koritsa should the International Commission so desire, but I am not aware what effect this recommendation may have had.

    Civil Disturbances (Use of Troops).
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether he can state the terms of reference of the Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the use of the troops at times of civil disturbance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference are: To report in what circumstances and on what conditions His Majesty's military forces should be employed to deal with disturbances or threatened disturbances of the peace among the civil population.

    Suffragist Prisoners.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary (1) whether Miss Hall, having been found guilty but not sentenced on one charge, and being then in prison, was refused access to her solicitor by the governor of the gaol, although she had still to be tried on a second charge; and (2) whether, and if so, on what grounds, Miss Hall's solicitor was refused access to her at the gaol on the morning of her trial for harbouring explosives?
    Mr. McKENNA: Miss Hall's solicitor saw her at the prison on the 19th, 22nd, 24th, and 25th of June. He did not apply to see her at the prison on the morning of the 26th, the day of her first trial. A few minutes before she was placed in the dock on that day he applied to see her in the cells, and was told he must obtain permission from the judge. After her conviction, on the 26th of June, the prisoner made no further request to see her solicitor.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Did the solicitor make any further request to see Miss Hall in order to prepare for her second trial?
    Mr. McKENNA: Not so far as I am aware, but if the hon. Member puts a further question down I will inquire.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Have inquiries been made of the governor as to whether permission was asked?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed from Holloway that there was no application made by Miss Nellie Hall between 26th June and 8th July.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen newspaper reports that these two ladies are being forcibly fed, and is there any truth in that?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, they were forcibly fed.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are they now?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think so. If my hon. Friend puts down a question on the point I will answer it.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether Miss Nellie Hall and Miss Grace Roe were or were not refused bail by Mr. Paul Taylor, the magistrate?
    Mr. McKENNA: The magistrate informs me that he expressly stated that he would refuse bail for these prisoners while on remand. He has no recollection of their applying for bail on the day on which they were committed for trial, but he says that had such application been made he would not have acceded to it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he stated in this House that they had not been refused bail, and, in view of this difficulty, would he give the House an undertaking that in future suffragette prisoners who have not broken their bail hitherto shall be allowed bail?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend's recollection is quite correct. I stated in this House that, so far as I was aware, no application had been made for bail. The matter was put to me by way of supplementary question, and I distinctly stated I could not rely on my memory on that point. With regard to the second question, I have no power on matters of bail.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman considers it according to the principles of justice to refuse a prisoner bail and then forcibly feed the prisoner while she is on remand?
    Mr. McKENNA: The two points do not relate to each other. On the subject of bail, as I stated in this House, had the application been made to me and had I the power, I should have granted the bail. My duty when a prisoner is in prison is to keep her there as long as I can.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that these prisoners, who have not been convicted, are being refused bail, will he instruct the prison authorities not to have them forcibly fed until they are found guilty?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I can give no instructions of that kind. My hon. Friend must not put the question in that form in
    1718
    view of the fact that these prisoners are not receiving bail, since, as a rule, I think the prisoners are on bail.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it in accordance with Home Office instructions that bail prisoners are forcibly fed?
    Mr. McKENNA: Home Office instructions do not concern themselves with bail at all. The Home Office instructions are to keep those prisoners in prison about whom there is reason to believe that their liberty would be misused for the purpose of committing further dangerous crimes.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the Home Secretary some years ago did not send a circular recommending that bail should be granted where possible to prisoners under remand, and whether the Home Secretary will allow bail for the prisoners?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no power to bail prisoners, but the Noble Lord is quite right in his recollection that a circular of the kind was sent out some years ago, and I have more than once stated in this House that in my judgment it would be wise in these cases to grant bail in every case.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Mr. Paul Taylor gave any reason for having refused bail?
    Mr. McKENNA: He does not give any reason. It is not necessary that he should.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: What would be the alternative—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice of any further questions should be given.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I give notice that at the end of questions I intend to move the Adjournment of the House on this question?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the forcible feeding in prison of certain British subjects who have not been convicted of any crime, and who should not therefore have violence done upon them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance—
    Mr. McKENNA: On a point of Order. May I explain that there can be no definiteness or urgency in this matter inasmuch as the persons to whom the hon. Member refers have since been convicted; and as regards urgency, the practice of forcibly feeding unconvicted prisoners has existed for some years.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Are these persons still in prison?
    Mr. McKENNA: They are still in prison, but convicted.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then this Motion refers to something which took place in the past?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that destroys its urgency.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I amend my notice so that it shall refer to forcible feeding in prison to which certain British subjects are liable, even though they are not convicted of any crime?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That destroys its definiteness.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I point out that we have it now on record that these women have been fed under these circumstances, and we have the statement of the Home Secretary that it is the ordinary practice. Consequently it may happen again. Therefore I submit that it is a definite matter and an urgent matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: On a point of Order. May I remind you, Sir, that there is nothing urgent in this matter, as the practice has been adopted to the knowledge of this House for a very considerable time. I have stated it in the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no urgency in a case which is not going on at the present time and may not occur again. If it does occur it will be open for the hon. Member to raise the point again, and I will consider it with an open mind then.

NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIZE COMPETITIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 354.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 354.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 321.]

MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 355.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 355.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 320.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Brady; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Swift MacNeill.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Pointer; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Stephen Walsh; and had also appointed Mr. Hugh Law.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill): Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Swift MacNeill; and had appointed in substitution
1726
(in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Brady.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill): Mr. Black, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Denison-Pender, Mr. Goldstone, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Lough, Mr. Molloy, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Parry, Mr. Peto, Mr. Prothero, Sir J. D. Rees, Mr. Rothschild, and Mr. Rowntree.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Merchant Shipping Bill): Dr. Addison, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Keating; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Carr-Gomm, Mr. M'Ghee, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Solicitor-General.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Merchant Shipping Bill): Mr. Barnes, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Daniel Boyle, Mr. Cecil, Mr. Ffrench, Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Croydon Marks, Sir Henry Norman, Sir Gilbert Parker, Mr. Walter Rea, Mr. Sandys, Mr. Stewart, Sir Archibald Williamson, Colonel Yate, and Mr. Yeo.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Motor Traffic (Street Noises) Bill): Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Swift MacNeill; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Herbert Samuel and Mr. Brady.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Motor Traffic (Street Noises) Bill): Sir Stephen Collins, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Du Cros, Mr. Field, Mr. Goldstone, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Morison, Captain Murray, Sir Henry Norman, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Arthur Stanley, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Arthur Strauss, and Mr. Yeo.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Government of Ireland Act, 1914." [Government of Ireland Amendment Bill [Lords.]
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Brentford Gas Bill [Lords],
Chelmsford Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  POLICE BILL.
  "To amend the Police Acts, 1839 to 1909." Presented by Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEY; supported by Captain Jessel, Mr. Shortt, Mr. Tobin, and Mr. Parker; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 322.]
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Labourers in Ireland." Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; supported by Mr. T. W. Russell; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 323.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  SECOND ALLOTTED DAY.—[Progress, 13th July].
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Amended Rates of Estate Duty).
    The scale set out in the First Schedule to this Act shall, in the case of persons dying after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, be substituted for the scale of rates of Estate Duty set out in the Second Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as the scale of rates of Estate Duty.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, at the end of Clause, to add the words:—
    "Provided always that in no case shall the amount of the Estate Duty exigible in respect of the increased rate per cent. be more than the sum by which the principal value of the estate exceeds the amount which would have made a lower rate of duty exigible."
    1728
    The Committee will see, I hope, by the time I have finished my explanation, that what I propose is a very reasonable and desirable thing. The object of the Amendment is to afford a little relief in what is a very anomalous position in regard to the Death Duties. The whole grading of the Death Duties, in my humble opinion, is wrong, but I cannot hope, of course, to deal with that. So far, however, as this particular anomaly is concerned, I think that the Committee will be entirely with me in saying that it ought to be remedied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is in no way responsible for this grading of the present Death Duties. It comes down from previous Governments, and I suppose the system is so ingrained in the officials that they cannot very well get out of it. But it is altogether wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has shown in the present Super-tax how duties ought to be graded. The Committee will know that in connection with the Super-tax up to £2,000 there is no extra duty. On the next £500 after there is 5d., and on the next £1,000 7d., and so on. That is exactly what should be done in regard to the Death Duties. The anomaly about the Death Duty is this: take the case of a man who leaves £60,000. On that he pays 7 per cent. Perhaps he leaves £60,100. In this latter case, the man to whom the money is left might go to the Commissioners and say, "You can take the extra £100 and I will pay the tax upon the £60,000." The Commissioners will say to him, "Oh, no, no; we are going to annex that £100 and another £500 besides," so that the man who gets £60,100 is in a much worse position than the man who has had left to him the smaller amount, £60,000. In still larger sums the burden is yet more onerous. A man to whom £100,000 is left is subject to 9 per cent. duty, and if he is left with £100,100 he is subject to 10 per cent. That is to say, because the estate happens to be £100, or even £50, beyond one or other of the standard figures I have taken, the man is mulcted in a quite disproportionate tax.
    The Committee will see at once how unfair this is. The difficulty, I know, is how to get over the anomaly. They get over it in New Zealand by saying that in the case of a grandchild, if the amount is £20,000, no Succession Duty shall be payable; if it is over £20,000 there is a duty of 2 per cent; but—and here is the point—"The duty payable shall not be

    1729
    greater than the amount paid in Succession Duty exceeds the £20,000." My Amendment is, in fact, that the duty shall be so arranged that it shall not be raised by more than the estate is raised. That is to say, taking the £60,000 I have mentioned, if the estate exceeds that by £500, and is £60,500, it shall not be taxed more than £500 in addition to the duty on £60,000, so that the man shall not be the loser, so to speak, by the fact of having been left a somewhat bigger estate—that he shall not be mulcted in another 1 per cent. duty. The answer, doubtless, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make to me—though I hope he will not make it—is that this will take money from him. I do not believe it, and I will show why. As it is, there is a constant struggle between executors and solicitors and the Inland Revenue authorities to bring estates just under in the one case, and just over in the other, so that they may save or get the additional 1 per cent. That will not be the case if executors know that the man to whom the money has been left will not be mulcted in an unfair way. They will not struggle so hard to keep the amount down, and the officials will be more satisfied. In any case, the amount lost will be, I think, a very small sum comparatively. I do not think anything will be lost. I do not know whether I should move along with this Amendment my next Amendment, which relates practically to the same thing—
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment of the hon. Member seems to me to be quite a different point, and should be dealt with separately.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I have an Amendment somewhat similar to that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen, though I imagine it is rather a better one. I should like, therefore, to say a few words in support of the Amendment proposed. If the Government accept the Amendment I shall be pleased. The hon. Member opposite has alluded to the injustice and hardship of this particular practice. It is a hardship, and in some cases an injustice. You have to recollect that these hardships and injustices are of comparatively recent growth. If we turn to the Finance Act of 1896 we see that Section 17 provides:—
    "Provided that where the principal value of an estate comprises a fraction
    1730
    of £100 in excess of £100, or of any multiple of £100 such fraction shall be excluded from the value of the estate for the purpose of determining both the rate and the amount of duty, except that where the principal value of the estate exceeds £100 and does not exceed £200 the duty shall be, £1."
    4.0 P.M.
    That meant, of course, taking an estate, say, of £1,089 that estate for the purpose of the duty was not considered to be worth £1,089, but to be worth £1,000 only. Well, to carry this matter further, in the year 1899 a Committee was appointed, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) was a Member, and they were asked, amongst other things, to investigate and advise upon the present practice of the Inland Revenue under Section 17 of the Finance Act of 1896, in connection with the allowances and margins for the assessment of estates. In 1900 they reported that the aggregation of separate properties to form one estate for the purposes of Estate Duty made the exact application of the margin unworkable. Each separate estate got the benefit of the £100 margin, and therefore there was grave loss to the revenue, and they recommended that this margin of £100 should be done away with. And the Report goes on:—
    "We would suggest that the margin of £100 allowed by Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1896, should be abolished, and that the duty should be charged on the exact amount of the property. At the same time we think that the Commissioners should be empowered by Statute to accept a simple statement in correction of an affidavit or account without putting the taxpayer to the trouble and expense of preparing and swearing to a corrective affidavit."
    In 1900 this particular £100 margin was swept away. Since 1900 we have travelled far, and we have in the last decade raised Estate and Death Duties on three different occasions, and therefore I suggest we should do something to mitigate the hardships that arise. There is bound to be some anomaly where you have gradation at all, and especially when you have gradation by £1. Someone is bound to feel aggrieved, but we should make the grievance as small as we can. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen made his suggestion, but I think, with due respect, it is a little complicated, and that perhaps my suggestion may be more acceptable to the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate, I think it will cause the revenue to

    1731
    lose less money. My suggestion is this: I will give the Committee an instance of what I mean, and how my suggestion would work out. Supposing an estate was worth £100,000, of course the duty at 9 per cent. would be £9,000. If it were £100,100, the duty would be 10 per cent., which would be £10,100—that is to say, for £1,000 of principal an increase of £1,100; that, of course, is a hardship which causes injustice. What would happen supposing my Amendment were accepted, is this: The estate would be assessed, not upon £101,000, but upon £100,000. It would pay £9,000, and then the difference between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent.—that is, £1,100—would be halved, and the total duty would be £9,000, plus £550—that is, £9,550, not £10,100. That is a substantial benefit to a man in that position, and it does not make any great loss to the revenue, and at the same time, which is more important, it is easy to understand and to assess. When you have gradation there must be a certain amount of injustice, and you should make the gradation as easy as possible; and if this Amendment is accepted, instead of there being a loss of £1,100, there would only be a loss of £550. However, I support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I have a hereditary interest in these duties. With regard to this Amendment I desire to say with the utmost frankness having regard to the particular point of £60,000 and £80,000, I have, or may have some day a personal interest in the matter. Let us take any particular point in the Schedule. The hon. Gentleman opposite talked of £100,000 and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen talked of £60,000. Take it at £60,000. I worked it out this morning and on £60,000 the difference comes to £980 in duty on an increment of £100 on £60,000. I do not think this is a point which divides the two sides of the House. I think it is frankly a defect in the present scale. I think my right hon. Friend will be ready to admit in principle that the scale is rather of an arbitrary character, not based upon any particular principle of policy or of benefit received, or any of those points we argued on Second Beading, and, with great respect to the Schedule, I am inclined to think that the jumps are rather abrupt. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. I should like to throw out the suggestion
    1732
    in regard to Sir William Harcourt's scale, and when we are dealing with larger sums of money it might be a matter for consideration whether you should not have a Schedule of greater length than half a page in which the jumps should not be so abrupt. I think my hon. Friend has made out a case either for the New Zealand scale or something like it.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I noted before I rose that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newman) had a similar Amendment on the Paper, and I thought it better to hear him present his case, because although the wording of his Amendment is different, in substance it is identical with that of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend behind me asked for sympathetic consideration for this Amendment. I agree that one bearing his name has a right to be heard on this matter. I think there is a good deal to be said for the proposal of my hon. Friend. I will come to the question of uniformity later on. I am now more concerned about the substance. The proposition is this: We have had a figure of £100,000 and a figure of £60,000. I will take £10,000. A man inheriting £10,000 pays £400. If he inherits £10,001 he pays £500, and my hon. Friend says that is not fair when a man is perfectly honest and puts in the extra £1. There is a very strong financial inducement to forget, I will say, some little item in the estate which, under certain circumstances, would have been known, and my hon. Friend says, first of all, it is unfair to a man who puts in the whole of the estate whether it be £10,001 or £10,005 that he should have to pay not £400 but £500, and, in the second place, he doubts very much whether the revenue will benefit. It may be that an estate would be so arranged as not to bear that burden if there was only £10 or £20 in excess of the £10,000. I agree with my hon. Friend; and when it comes to an estate of £50,000 and £100,000 the inducement is; still greater and the injustice is still greater. He suggests a method by which in the case of a man who is perfectly honest and returns £10,001 he should only pay £401 instead of £500 and that if he returns £10,020 he should pay only £420 and not be penalised to the extent of £100 by that process. I agree with my hon. Friend.
    I have gone into this very carefully and I think it is a very much better arrange-

    1733
    ment of the duty. Of course I agree the difficulty in all those scales is that you come to a point of difference between one scale and another which is a very great one, and I am not at all sure that there is not something in his suggestion that the estate would be split up into decimal fractions. At any rate I agree that the leap should not be such a very considerable one between one scale and another. Up to the present we have all slavishly adhered to the traditions we have inherited for fifty years, and I think there is something to be said for an alleviation of the scale with the view to splitting it up into much smaller fractions. I am prepared at the moment to accept the principle of the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member opposite. I am advised by the draftsmen that this is not the form in which they would agree to see it inserted in the Finance Act. I would be prepared to accept it in this form with a view to its alteration on Report stage, but once you insert it in this form there is always the danger that in re-opening it you might relieve one person and put a certain burden on another, which would make the alteration a disorderly one on Report stage, and therefore if my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite will accept the undertaking of the Government we will put down an Amendment on the Report stage which substantially carries this out.
    Mr. NEWMAN: The Government will?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, the Government will put down an Amendment which substantially carries out this alteration. As my hon. Friend will realise, there are little questions of adjustments to be made when the relief is to be granted to persons who benefit. Neither of these Amendments meet that point. They do not cover all the points, and the Estate Duty Office would like time to consider as between the various individuals who benefit by the relief. Therefore, if my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite will also assent, I will undertake that an Amendment carrying out the proposals made will be placed upon the Paper on Report stage.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think the Committee will learn with satisfaction the announcement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I do not, however,
    1734
    understand why the hon. Member opposite has put in his Amendment the words, "in respect of the increased rate per cent." That only affects the large estates over £60,000. I imagine the Amendment was drafted in that way because had it been drafted otherwise the Chairman might have moved that it should come as a new Clause. The principle is exactly the same with regard to existing rates. Whether the sum is £10,000, £60,000, or £150,000 the principle is the same, and the right hon. Gentleman in granting the principle, I suppose, will cover existing rates as well as the new rates by his Amendment, and thereby relieve the injustice which perhaps applies as much in degree, but applies equally to the smaller as to the larger estates.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government will not confine their adjustments merely to the increases proposed.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I presume that the words "increased rate" means the higher rates in the scale. When my right hon. Friend is considering this Amendment I hope he will consider the form of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman), which I think is a better form. My hon. Friend proposes that he should take all the excess when you pass the £10,000 limit, but if I understand the Amendment of the hon. Member for Enfield, you only take half the excess. That Amendment, however, has this advantage, that the more a man saves the more he will have left after the tax.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is still another way of dealing with this question. The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman is a distinct improvement on the Bill, but there is still another method by which the right hon. Gentleman may get over the difficulty. The difficulty seems to me to be that the jumps are far too great, and there is a strong inducement for an estate to be recorded a few hundred pounds less in order to get a lower rate. It would therefore pay anyone to give away a small sum in order to save a great deal of the tax. I do not think that such an inducement ought to exist. The other difficulty is that there is no reason why you should stop the increment of increase at this limit, and there is a method by which you can arrive at a curve by interpolation. As

    1735
    a matter of fact, you can have a chart and no one in this House need worry himself with the figures, because that is for the officials to deal with. After you have constructed a chart you have only to glance at it and there you will find the rate for every £1,000. Once you have made out your chart there is no reason why it should not be printed on the back of every Income Tax form, and then everyone could see exactly what rate they would have to pay. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the adoption of a scientific curve which can be worked out by an algebraical formula.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the scientific curve was on the Paper yesterday, and you passed it over? I would, therefore, like to know if the hon. Member is now in order in dealing with it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member has now got an entirely new curve.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: It is exactly the same principle. Hon. Members opposite were anxious yesterday that I should have an opportunity of explaining this point, and I am glad that that opportunity has arrived to-day.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the hon. Member now states that the curve is the same?
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I said the curve was the same in principle. It is only the figures that are different. The formula is the same. There is no reason whatever why a man who leaves £79,000 should not pay at a higher rate than a man who leaves £60,000. It is not fair for the man who leaves £60,000 to have to pay the same rate as a man who leaves £79,000. My hon. Friend has suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose revenue if he adopts his Amendment. Certainly he will, but I may point out that he will gain if he adopts my suggestion.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the suggestion of the hon. Member would involve a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I am not moving this now, and I am only suggesting an alternative way. When my right hon. Friend
    1736
    comes to examine the proposition of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, I hope he will also examine the alternative which I have suggested. If an estate of £60,000 has to pay so much, surely an estate of £65,000 ought to pay more, and they ought to go by easy steps to a higher rate. Under the Bill the jump goes up at right angles, and I want the rise to go up as a curve. I want the rate to ascend on an inclined plane instead of by a system of jumps. In the way suggested, the revenue would be increased on a fair basis, because a man leaving £79,000 would pay upon a higher scale than a man who left £78,000, and £78,000 would pay a higher rate than £77,000. Why should you not have a scientific scale? Why should you not have something that everyone can understand, instead of a thing which nobody can understand? Why should you not have a scale whereby everyone who has an estate to leave knows exactly what the duty would be? This Amendment is complex compared with the simplicity of the proposal which I have put before the Committee. A formula would give you all the intermediate figures. Then why should you stop at £1,000,000? Why should a poor man who dies worth £1,000,000 pay the same rate as a man who dies worth £12,000,000? That is distinctly unfair if the system of graduated taxation is right. The tax I suggest would get so high when you get up to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 that it would tend to prevent people amassing these enormous sums. An algebraic interpolation is so simple that any schoolboy could workout the tax.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: After the statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I quite appreciate what the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) has said, and I believe this scientific curve will have to come. I give the hon. Member full credit for the way in which he has tried to work out this problem, but when I tried to work it out I found that if a man had £250,000 a year income, his Income Tax would amount under that scale to £1 6s. in the £. I am content with this smaller thing, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will bring in an Amendment. I am not wedded to the particular words on the Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman can alter the words as he chooses, so long as they effect my purpose.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "Where the estate exceeds one thousand pounds the amount of Legacy or Succession Duty exigible shall not exceed the amount by which the estate exceeds one thousand pounds."
    Under Section 16, if the amount of the estate is less than £1,000, Legacy and Succession Duty need not be paid. If the estate is less than £1,000 a person will not pay anything, but if it is £1,010 the estate would have to pay £50 in Legacy Duty. I think it is rather hard that the odd £10 should involve a person in that large additional sum. The difficulty will be that those who are dealing with estates of about £1,000, or a little over, will endeavour by some means to bring the estate down to a few pounds under £1,000, because that would mean a saving of £50. What I want to guard against is a person being penalised to the extent of another £40 in taxation because of the additional £10 over £1,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is not quite the same thing, but it is practically the same principle, being for the protection of very small estates. The facts of what would happen in that case are exactly as stated by my hon. Friend, and it does seem a hardship that there should be all that difference between the estate of £1,000 and the estate of £1,010. I therefore put this Amendment in exactly the same category as the last, and, if my hon. Friend will withdraw it, I will see that an Amendment is put down to cover both cases.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Amendment will be in the form of a new Clause or not?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should rather like to consider the matter before answering that question. I do not know whether it would be a new Clause or an Amendment to this Clause.
    Mr. WATT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much money there is in these two Amendments?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very difficult to answer that question, but it is one
    1738
    of the first I naturally asked. Taking the two together, I think the loss would be about £40,000 a year. That is the estimate made by the Office, and they are extraordinarily accurate in their forecasts. I am prepared to face that possible loss, because I think it is a very just concession, and I therefore accept the principle of the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do. Do I understand that he accepts the principle of the Amendment and is going to bring up another Amendment on Report?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE; Now this has been satisfactorily settled, may I ask how this Amendment is in order?
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): When I was going through the Amendments, I had some doubt on the point myself, but, not being a draftsman, I took expert advice, and I was informed that it could come probably in this Clause, although my own opinion, apart from the legal aspect, was that it would have been better as a new Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. FELL: This is the substitution of a new Schedule of Estate Duties, and my first objection is to the Chancellor having made any change whatever. I should still object to the change, whether it were to reduce or to increase the duty. We object to any change whatever being made to this Schedule, which has only been in force for four years. The Estate Duties were enormously increased four years ago, and I object in principle to any change at the present time. It is an immense mistake and will create a great deal of trouble in the country. These Estate Duties have to be arranged for by all prudent people years beforehand. They make their arrangements to meet the Estate Duty payable at death. They are far heavier than any Income Tax or anything of that kind. They amount to 10 per cent., 15 per cent., and 20 per cent. of the whole of a man's fortune, and, when considering what you are leaving to your heirs or dependants, and what fortune you can give them, you must take

    1739
    the Estate Duties into account and see how you can provide for them. Worse, however, than the heaviness of them is the question whether there is certainty about the matter or not. They may be provided for by certain sums kept as liquid assets, or by insurance, or in other ways, but, if a man has provided for them, it is very hard to find that his provision is made of no avail by the changes the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. It is most awkward and difficult for a firm when the senior partner dies and a large amount is taken out of the business, and under this proposal the amount payable on his death will amount to half as much again as he thought. It may have a great effect on the future of the firm. That is the first point I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider. These changes should be made at the longest dates apart possible. They must create an immense amount of difficulty when they are made, and, whether they are increased or reduced, it is a matter of great consideration whether some other way of providing the money could not be found.
    I do not think the promise just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer really alters the proposed scale, though it will slightly alter the sub-division. The scale which was adopted in the 1909–10 Budget is not altered with regard to estates up to £40,000, but from £40,000 the divisions and the amounts are altered. When you come to estates of £100,000 it is 1 per cent. more than it was. It is 10 per cent. now, and it was 9 per cent. It is 1 per cent. more than it was until you reach £300,000, when it becomes 2 per cent. more, being 13 per cent. instead of 11 per cent. At £350,000 it becomes 3 per cent. more, and it goes on increasing up to £1,000,000, when the 15 per cent. fixed by the 1909–10 Budget is increased to 20 per cent. After that it remains at the flat rate of 20 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman probably thought it was dangerous to go above that amount, fearing that a higher rate might produce a less income, as is the case and has often been proved to be the case with various taxes in this country. The new scale affects estates over £40,000 those over £100,000 very materially, and the estates of millionaires very much indeed. The largest number of estates are those between £1,000 and £5,000. In 1913, 15,000 of these came under Estate Duty, 3,500 estates between £5,000 and £10,000, and 2,000 estates between £10,000
    1740
    and £20,000. After £20,000 they decreased rapidly till there were only eleven estates of £1,000,000 and upwards. It is a little difficult to be accurate, but as far as I can find out, there are 11,500 Super-tax payers in this country, and about 700 or 750 of them die each year. Therefore, the Super-tax people will also contribute largely to these Death Duties.
    I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the amount assessed for Estate Duties is not increasing. We have the figures from 1902 to this year. In 1902 the amount brought in for Estate Duties was £270,000,000, and in 1913 it was £279,000,000, or practically the same. That is a very remarkable thing, because the population has not been stationary. It may be said that last year was an exceptional year, but that is not so, because if you go right through those eleven years, you will find that the highest year was 1906, when the money which came to be valued for Estate Duty was £298,000,000. That shows that there is a very small change, and that practically the amount is stationary. I want to call attention to that because we are raising very much larger sums by Estate Duty than in 1902. We are raising very much more money, but the capital sum itself has remained stationary, and that is something which ought to give us thought. I have heard it said that the capital sum does not increase because there has been such a very large fall in the price of investment stocks, and, if they had remained at anything like the prices in 1902, there would have been a very large increase in the amount liable to Estate Duty. That is perfectly true, but you must set something else against that. There is now a much closer collection of Estate Duties than there was. It is much more carefully looked after by Somerset House than it was, probably, in 1902. It may be remembered that the Chancellor says, that the valuations under the Budget of 1909–10 would be useful, because they would enable him to collect very much larger Estate Duties. If that is so, how is it that the capital sum on which Estate Duty is levied remains stationary? Property belonging to persons who pay Estate Duty is not increasing at the present time, and has not increased for the past twelve years. That is a most serious factor, and one which no Chancellor of the Exchequer could contemplate without grave concern.

    1741
    When he talks of putting 20 or 30 per cent. more duty on this sum, which is a stationary sum, I say it is a grave question whether it can safely be done. It may take years to find out what the effect is, but I fear we shall discover that the money which is being taken away from the investments of the country is not being made up by the savings effected by the people. There are many ways in which this may be tested. There are many people who, although they have less capital, are getting a larger income than they had four years ago, but that is because they are able to get a higher rate of interest on their investments. When, however, it comes to the levying of the Death Duties then it is found that the estates have not increased in value. The figures which have been published show, indeed, that the value of the estates coining under the Estate Duties is not increasing in this country, although the population is increasing; wealth is increasing, and the spending of the people is increasing. This is an exceedingly serious matter, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after three or four years' experience of high duties, finds that, as a result, the sum upon which he is making his assessments remains stationary, it should cause him to consider seriously before he decides to increase the present rates by 20 per cent.
    Over £30,000,000 is to be extracted from the estates of persons who die in this country. That sum has to be raised by the sale of securities, and, in a great number of cases, the effect of the sale must be very marked, not only on those particular securities, but on the securities held by other people. The sale of £30,000,000 worth in any country must have a most depressing effect on the value of all securities, and I have heard it stated that the sale of this amount may reduce the capital value of these securities by ten times the amount—that is to say, the Government, in obtaining this £30,000,000 by means of these sales causes a loss to the community of £300,000,000 by the consequent fall in the values of the stock which are quoted. One may happen to be interested in a particular security and suddenly find it is going down; an inquiry reveals the fact that it is due to the throwing upon the market, through the death of the owner, of his holding in that particular company. If this occurs in one case, and if it is thus possible to estimate the extent of the depreciation in value, how much more serious does it become when you have a large number of capitalists dying, and the
    1742
    stocks they hold thrown on to the market. It must necessarily seriously depreciate values all round.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) has frequently spoken of the case of a man owning £1,000,000, and has suggested that even if half a million were taken from his estate he would still have ample money left. In the same way he has suggested that it would be no hardship to call upon a man with an income of £10,000 a year to pay £5,000 in the form of Income Tax, as he would still have £5,000 to live upon. But when it comes to enforcing the sale of £1,000,000 worth of security the hon. Member for Blackburn would probably find that soon there would be no sums of £1,000,000 to dispose of, and that the whole business of the country would be seriously depressed. It would become impossible in that great international market of the world, which we have in the City of London, to sell these large holdings of stock, and the Government would have to take the stocks over and hold them until it was possible to realise. It is perfectly clear that the Government themselves consider that 20 per cent. is the maximum sum they dare levy upon any estate in this country. I do not know how long they will continue to hold that view. Four years ago their maximum was 15 per cent.; now they have screwed it up to 20 per cent., but it is apparent from the tables they have produced that they think it would be dangerous to attempt to levy at a higher rate, although suggestions have been made that if a man had £2,000,000 he should be called upon to pay 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. if he owns £3,000,000. But at present the Government, apparently, feel they dare not go higher than 20 per cent.
    Mr. WING: Do I gather that the hon. Member does not think that 20 per cent. is enough?
    Mr. FELL: I am objecting to the Budget proposals on two grounds: In the first place, I object to any change being made at all, and in the second place, I object to any increase being made, and I am merely stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, apparently, afraid to go beyond 20 per cent., because he thinks that if he did he would realise a lesser amount than a lower rate of duty is calculated to bring in. I think it was the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Henderson) who suggested a sliding scale, but it was not received with very much enthusiasm by the

    1743
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in the Amendment which he is proposing to put down, does not, as I understand, intend to go beyond a rate of 20 per cent. One other point on which I should like to touch is the manner in which this Estate Duty presses upon ordinary income. Since the Budget was brought in people have been inundated with proposals from various insurance offices as to methods of providing for these Estates Duties at their death, and if the tables which are sent round are looked at it will be found that they all refer to comparatively young people who can insure their lives for very large sums and thus provide for payment of the Estate Duty. But, as a matter of fact, there are very few young people who are able to insure their lives for large sums; they may become rich men before they die, but it is practically impossible for them, when young, to insure for £10,000 or £20,000. The tables which have been sent round show that to provide for Income Tax and Estate Duty together the cost of insurance is about 3s. 2d. or 3s. 6d. in the £.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is the highest rate.
    Mr. FELL: It is the rate applicable to cases of men who get Cabinet Minister's salaries, or, it may be, incomes of £3,000 which render them liable to the Super-tax. In these cases the necessary provision can only be made at a cost of 3s. 2d. or 3s. 6d. in the £ on the year's income. If a man happens to be seventy years of age the cost is not under 5s., and if his age exceeds seventy I do not think the insurance companies would issue a policy to him at all. Men are thus placed in a very difficult position. A man has made his arrangements for the future so far as he can do. He has insured his life and provided for his children, but now he finds that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—only four years having elapsed since the last change—is largely increasing the Estate Duties, with the result that the provision which he has made will prove insufficient, and he will be compelled to effect an increased insurance, necessarily at an increased rate, because he is so many years older—in fact, he will probably have to pay something like 5s. in the £ on his income for the rest of his life. Incidentally I may say I have never heard of incomes in any country being levied upon to the extent of 5s. in the £. Of course if a man
    1744
    knows of it in time he may find it perfectly possible to live on the balance of 15s. in the £, but when for years he has been regulating his expenditure on the basis of a margin of 16s. or 17s. in the £ and is suddenly called upon to cut it down to 15s. in the £, it is a matter of the greatest difficulty, because it has to come out of the margin of expenses, the permanent fixed charges already absorbing the greater part of his income.
    5.0 P.M.
    It is a serious matter for the whole country to realise that the people who are going to pay this extra Income Tax, the extra Super-tax, and the increased Estate Duty, represent only about one in every 2,000, and this small number of people are to find the money for all the great benefits which this Budget is supposed to confer. It is an extraordinary position, which has never before been taken up, to fix upon a very small body of people and ask them to bear such a burden. What does it mean? You go along the street and you meet 499 people, all of them with plenty of money, but not one of them is being called upon to contribute one farthing towards the vast benefits which are going to be given by this Budget. But the five-hundreth man you stop and say, "You, and you alone of the 500, are to be called upon to pay the increased burden." All this money will come out of this small body of men who already have to pay Super-tax and insurance money. It is a very dangerous thing. In the old days the principle used to be that you should spread the burdens over the largest number. If you ask the big traders and great manufacturers of this country, the people who are making the big fortunes and who cater for the masses, they will tell you that it is the little sums which go to make these great fortunes. It used to be the idea that the broad shoulders of the masses were the best able to bear these burdens, but now the idea is that nothing more should be put upon them, and they are even grumbling at the duties which they still have to pay. It is possibly a dangerous thing that this excessive charge should be levied on such a small body as these 11,000 people.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Member who has just sat down gave us a very interesting speech, and we would all agree that the subject he has raised in its broadest aspect is of great importance. I feel, however, that he exaggerates when he asks the Committee to believe that the

    1745
    amount of wealth in this country is stationary merely because the amounts revealed by the tax gatherers every year have undoubtedly been almost stationary for some considerable period of years. He pointed out, quite justly, that the lump sum revealed during recent years for the purposes of Death Duties has approached £300,000,000, and has stuck at or about that sum in a very remarkable manner. Does that show that the amount of wealth in the country is stationary? The hon. Member fears and represents that the capital of the country has been stationary, and that it is therefore the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think twice before he imposes heavier Death Duties. I would point out to the hon. Member, as I did once before in this connection, that these figures do not show the actual amount of capital which would be revealed if there were no Death Duties and if one could have a revelation of the aggregate of estates made over independent of the Death Duties. As the Death Duties increase, you get the really remarkable fact—perhaps the most remarkable fact ever produced by taxation—namely, that rich men begin to give their property away during their lifetime. That is one of the chief things we have to consider in this connection, and it is one of the chief arguments the hon. Member might have used against the increase of the Death Duties. That main argument he did not use, although it seemed to be implicit in the facts he presented to the Committee.
    Three years ago I pointed out on one of these occasions that there is undoubtedly the clearest proof that you get an increased evasion—it is hardly evasion, but an increased avoidance of the Death Duties as you increase the rate of those duties. The facts the hon. Member gave as to the effect of the Death Duties since 1906 very largely support that view. The point is, What is the effective maximum of Death Duties? If I have some sympathy with the proposal to omit Clause 9—which I say at once I shall not vote for in the Lobby, if it is pressed—it arises from the considerable doubt at present in my mind as to whether this further increase of the rate of the duties will really increase the revenue obtained from them. Some years ago I ventured to suggest, before these recent revisions were made, that the Death Duties might be increased. It has always been held that Death Duties are a very convenient instrument of taxation, be-
    1746
    cause the property is, as it were, between heaven and earth, and is not in the possession of one man or the other. But when I made that suggestion I did not myself venture to suggest that the Death. Duties should be as high as 20 per cent., not because I had that almost superstitious regard for the millionaire estates that seemed to be possessed by the hon. Member, but because of the question whether the higher duty would really produce a higher revenue. The hon. Member truly pointed out that there had been a certain fall in values. That is a partial explanation. Every one of us knows of actual cases in which the Death Duties have been evaded by gifts inter vivos. There was a conspicuous case only lately, which is present to most of our minds, in which a certain nobleman gave away property to his sons, but one of his sons unfortunately predeceased him, and the father had to pay the Death Duties on the property which had been given away in an attempt to evade the Death Duties.
    On the point whether capital has been increasing or not, there is undoubtedly a number of statisticians of eminence who have taken the trouble to estimate what our investments have been in recent years. There is, fortunately, every reason to believe that there has never been more new investment than there has been in recent years. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. If he contends that that is not the case, I shall listen to him with very great interest, but I see no reason, for not accepting the statements which have been made on very good evidence—for instance, that for last year there was a record investment in this country. I do not regard the character of that investment as by any means satisfactory. Certainly a great deal too much, in my opinion, was made abroad rather than in this country. That, however, does not affect the question of property possessed by persons in this country, and therefore subject to the Death Duties. There can be no doubt that the hon. Member's fears on that head are not justified. There is another point I should like to urge upon, the Government, namely, the capriciousness of the Death Duties. Some years ago, when I was endeavouring to form a true conception of how often on the average property passed from persons to their heirs, I took the trouble to investigate for a period of about two centuries how often titles had passed in various families. The degree of variation

    1747
    that was shown was extraordinary. You found one family where, during the period of two centuries, the title had passed every forty years, and you found another family where the title passed every seventeen years. What does that mean? That the estates, or a large part of the property, passed with those titles in all probability, and therefore, if you levy in a higher rate of duty, you would be taxing different families very unequally. That is a very strong argument as to the justice or injustice of the Death Duties. For that reason, and for the reason that I believe we have very nearly reached the point, if we have not already done so, at which the Death Duties cease to be effective as an instrument of revenue, I must confess I would rather have seen my right hon. Friend get his extra revenue from the Income Tax than from the Death Duties. I feel that very strongly.
    We have no proof of the fact, but there is this possibility to consider, that if this further increase we are now voting were not made we might get more revenue during the next five years than if these actual alterations were made. It is not susceptible of proof, but there is a probability that it may be true that in screwing up the Death Duties we shall simply be screwing up the desire to evade payment of the Death Duties, with the consequence that there will be those who for a number of years will rise up to call my right hon. Friend blessed, a consideration which perhaps was not present to the mind of the hon. Gentleman who just addressed the Committee. I have heard it said that there is a good deal to be said for the Death Duties from that point of view as the distributors of property, but I am not one of those who believe that taxes ought to be imposed with what one of my hon. Friends called a "policy end" in view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear those cheers from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on that point, because it also affects the policy with which they are concerned in other directions. There is an alternative way of taxing capital, which is practised in Prussia. I am afraid these references to Germany become rather boring after a time, but one cannot help turning one's eyes in the direction of a country which has been so eminently successful in governing itself. The Prussians graduate their Income Tax on a scale which has very fine steps, and they differentiate it by causing
    1748
    every man to declare the value of his capital and imposing a yearly tax upon the value of that capital. That is an alternative to the Death Duties, and it is an alternative which is perhaps worthy of consideration in this country, in view of the very great difficulty of avoiding the inter vivos passing of property. When a man to avoid Death Duties gives away a part of his property, you cannot really say that he has committed an immoral act. You cannot condemn him on moral grounds. It is not the ordinary case of a man evading taxation, and you cannot put it on the same footing. All of us feel the difficulty in meeting that point. That being the case, the question arises whether we ought not to cease advancing the Death Duties, and to seek other and more equitable means of raising the revenue we need. I am sorry I have been so long, but with these observations I do commend very seriously these matters to the attention of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Everyone has listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I think everyone realises that his speech was made with the real object, from a nonparty point of view, of improving our knowledge of taxation. We have all recognised on this side of the Committee that the hon. Member has approached this subject from that point of view with great knowledge and after great study. I wish to approach this question of the Death Duties mainly from the point of view of our agricultural industries. Before I deal with that, I would strongly endorse the remark of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken as to the weak point of the Death Duties in the great inequality with which they fall upon different estates. What he did not point out, but what I am sure would be in the minds of the Committee, is that the inequality becomes more serious in proportion to the rate of the duty. There are many inequalities as regards taxation which you cannot afford to disregard when the rate of the duty is not very high, but when you come to such a rate of duty as is proposed in this Clause then the inequality is tremendous, and it may happen that one estate pays nothing during the period, while another estate of exactly similar value is practically wiped out of existence. That particularly applies to agricultural land. We on this side of the House, in opposing this Clause, stand this year on very much stronger ground than we have stood in

    1749
    similar Debates in the past, because the answer which is always given to any objection, to increasing taxation in this manner is—what alternative have we got to produce in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find the money. We unanimously voted against the reduction of the Income Tax from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 3d., and I said at the time, and I think it was the general feeling on this side, that if extra money has to be raised it is far preferable to raise it by Income Tax than by raising the Death Duties to this wholly unconscionable figure. Therefore, it cannot be thrown in our teeth that we are not prepared with an alternative method of raising the money, and we axe entitled to object on the strongest grounds to this enormous increase of the Death Duties.
    I do not think hon. Members opposite in the least understand what the effect of the Death Duties is upon agricultural estates. An agricultural estate is a partnership, and on every agricultural estate a certain amount of the capital for working it and getting the agricultural produce out of it, and for increasing its productive capacity, has to be found in partnership by the owner and by the tenant, who is the cultivator. When you impose duties upon that property in the form of Income Tax, that is recognised, and it is recognised that to take large sums out of that estate without the least regard to ability to pay is injurious to the partnership and injurious to the productivity of the estate. Yesterday we were discussing an Amendment to reduce the rate of assessment to Income Tax upon agricultural estates to somewhere near the figure which is actually received. Agricultural property in this country is now a very small proportion of the total wealth of the country, and a continually declining proportion. Nothing is more often the subject of debate, and I believe there is no more genuine desire on the part of hon. Members than to do something to improve agriculture. Hon. Members say and think that agriculture is sick, and that the House is to spend large sums of money in endeavouring to improve the conditions of agriculture, housing, wages, and so on, and yet, when that is one of the live questions considered by the Government, here comes the very Chancellor of the Exchequer who makes these proposals and asks the House to sanction a rate of Death Duties which is absolutely destructive of the productivity of any agricultural estate
    1750
    upon which it falls. Take an agricultural estate of a capital value of £100,000. Hon. Members perhaps think that an agricultural estate of a capital value of £100,000 must mean that the man has a very large income who owns it and is quite capable of paying the duty. We are now told that the Death Duties are to be based upon a valuation. I happen to have the valuation of a farm which will put these two things into their proper relations. It is a farm of 290 acres, and in twenty years the net income received from it averaged rather less than £120. It has only an agricultural value, and the valuation shows that. There is no addition whatever for building value. The total value is just over £8,000, the gross rent is £250, and the net rental which the owner has received for the period of twenty years is £118.
    Mr. LEIF JONESmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not necessarily so. That is not very comforting to the owner if he is dead and has to pay the duty. I do not think that is a fair interruption.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I did not mean it to be unfair. My point was that if the owner has been spending very heavily during the last twenty years, surely the average expenditure during the next twenty years would not be anything like the same. If the hon. Member wished to be perfectly fair he would take something more like what would be the average net rent than the rent of twenty very expensive years.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Twenty years is a pretty long time, and I think a fair time to take. As a matter of fact a considerable proportion of that money is an annual outgoing for the maintenance of a seawall, tithes, and so on, and I do not think it is very far from the average. If the productivity of the farm is to be increased, the expenditure will probably have to be continued at something like the same rate. If it belonged to a £100,000 estate the rate of duty will be 5 per cent., the Succession Duty 9 per cent., which is the new rate, and the Death Duty would be something over £1,100. So that the owner of the estate, out of an income of £120, has to find a duty of £1,100. Where is he to get it from? Is he to sell? That is the one remedy of hon. Members opposite. Why should he keep it? Why should he not sell it to someone else who has money? That is, I suppose, part of

    1751
    the process of taxing out of existence. It really is, from the point of view of agricultural owners, a scandal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have even suggested that any class in this country is to be taxed out of existence. But this is what it is doing as a result of that taxing out of existence. I have a letter which appeared in the "Times" only three or four days ago from a West Country farmer. I do not know him, but I have no doubt it is genuine. He writes to say:—
    "The land I occupy has been in the same family for over three generations and is probably some of the most productive in the country. I am well under forty years of age, have worked upon the land practically the whole of my life, and have not the slightest inclination to add to the population of the already overcrowded cities. But now the landlord, for good reasons, and as he has a perfect right to do, has decided to dispose of the property and I am under notice to leave. I have been able to make a living out of the farm and have saved a little money, but not sufficient to purchase, and do not care to overload myself with a mortgage (if I could) with its attendant expenses. What am I to do? I am writing under a nom de plume, so perhaps may be allowed to say that I believe myself to be a practical farmer, with a thorough knowledge of land, cattle grazing and dairying. I pay out in rent, labour, rates and taxes, considerably over £1,000 per annum, and my living expenses in any year have not exceeded £"200."
    He is going to the Colonies, not because he does not prefer to remain in England, but because there appears to be no opportunity open to him to make the best use of his experience and knowledge here. That is the man who suffers, and the tenant farmers of England—and I know I am speaking their views as a body—desire to be left alone under the owners of land in this country and under the same conditions as have obtained in the past. Of course, if the land is wanted for a public purpose, that is another matter altogether. The land may be taken, and properly taken, at its fair value for a public purpose, but to place burdens upon the land which force it into the market when the tenant cannot buy, and to force that tenant and his capital abroad, is to starve the land. In the case I have given nearly ten years of the entire available income is taken at one stroke in Death Duties, and that only on a moderate estate of the value of £100,000. What happens? I can tell the Committee my own experience. I have owned an agricultural estate for twenty-five years, and I have done what many owners have done: I have spent the income of the estate upon improvements, and the result of that has been not to increase my own income. The whole rateable value of the district has im-
    1752
    proved, the cultivation of it has improved, and the capital expended has given opportunities, not in this place only, but in many others, to many people to make a living; and further than that, the taxable capacity of the area has been increased and the State is legitimately getting an improved revenue out of it. Supposing at the time I succeeded to that estate these duties had been in existence, none of these things would have taken place. The owner could not have lived upon the property, the estate would have been starved, and the condition of the whole district would have been wholly inferior to what it is to-day. The whole life-blood would have been drawn out of the estate, and it is only because these duties were not enforced that the income has been available in order to improve the productivity of the estate. The effect of imposing duties upon agricultural property at this rate, and its being a pure gamble whether the duties fall upon the estate or do not, is that you come down upon particular agricultural areas and suck out the whole of their life-blood and leave them practically derelict for a term of years.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown in the Income Tax Amendment, which he put on the Paper himself yesterday, that he desires in the matter of Income Tax to treat agricultural property fairly. I am strongly of opinion that on general grounds the rate is too high on all kinds of property. But, putting that aside, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise is that the taxing conditions which he applies to a great industrial community cannot be applied without variation to the small part of the capital of this country which is invested in the agricultural industry. It cannot be done without crushing and ruining that industry. Sir William Harcourt did recognise that, because he enacted, and it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has abolished that exemption, that on purely agricultural property no Death Duties should ever exceed a certain number of years' purchase of the income. All that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does is to remove that Clause and to deprive agriculture of the exemption, and so to put the whole burden of Death Duties, calculated for a great industrial country, upon the small amount of capital invested in agriculture. We have a return which was furnished by the Treasury at the request of Mr. Austen Chamberlain. Here we see

    1753
    a rate of Income Tax which is comparable to the different rates of Death Duty levied under this Clause. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not worth considering in the case of purely agricultural property, instead of having to pay this enormous burden of Death Duties, there might be charged some extra Income Tax. There would be no breach of principle there, and people paying Income Tax would get the benefit of the reduction in respect of useful and beneficial expenditure on estates. In connection with agricultural property, you can do this from the point of view of Income Tax.
    I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the rate of duty which he proposes to impose on agricultural property is absolutely destructive of the only chance which the owner of agricultural property has. The effect of the duty imposed on agricultural property is to make it fall in an absolutely crushing way, with the result that the owner cannot live on the estate. He goes to some other place and takes up some other work, instead of being able to maintain his touch and partnership with those who are partners in working the estate. He goes away and forms new ties and interests, and when the duty has been paid he is never able to take up the position he would have had there but for the duty. The one thing which is disliked by the whole population of an agricultural property is that the owner should be driven away, that someone else should come in to keep the place, and that the personal touch between the owner and those who live upon the property should be lost. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires—and Ave are led to suppose that he desires—to improve the condition of agriculture, I say that he is not only not improving it by imposing duties on this scale, but he is absolutely destroying the opportunities in connection with most agricultural estates. When these questions are being discussed the owners of agricultural property are talked of as if they were tyrants and men of great power and position, and it is thought that it is the weak outsiders who are endeavouring to get their little bit and to share the monopoly, and not the agricultural owners, who will go down. The exact contrary is the case. Agricultural owners are in a weak minority in this country, and all we ask for is justice. I desire to place it on record that if we go down owing to this super-taxa-
    1754
    tion of agricultural property, we go down, not because we deserve it, but because we are too weak to be able to fight and because our numbers are not sufficient. I do stand up solemnly to protest that if the House of Commons imposes Death Duties at this rate on agricultural property they are destroying the agricultural industry. The agricultural industry cannot bear this. It is too high; it is altogether excessive; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer with that knowledge continues to impose that rate, then he will foe the man who has destroyed the agricultural interest in this country.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in the House when the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) addressed the Committee. I listened to his speech, and it was apparent that having made a great study of the subject, he was directing his knowledge to the demerits of this particular course of taxation. He laid particular stress on the fact that this form of taxation really is beginning to be a failure rather than a success, and that you have within the last two years apparently reached the limit to which you can go from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view in putting burdens upon capital. If we are to draw any inference at all from the results of the duty in the past two years, we are right in saying that in a year or two's time, instead of its bringing money to the Exchequer, it will bring less money in all probability than in the past two years. The hon. Member told us that the total value of estates brought into valuation for the Death Duties in 1902 amounted to £270,000,000, and that in 1913 the amount had increased to £279,000,000. I think everybody admits that during that particular period the general wealth of the country has very much increased, and though I have not got the actual figures with me showing the total amount assessed to Income Tax during the same period, I fancy that if the figures are worked out it will be found that the total amount assessed to Income Tax had enormously increased in 1913 as compared with 1902, while the total amount of estates brought in for the purpose of Estate Duty has only increased by the very small sum of £9,000,000. That is undoubtedly a very high amount on which these duties have been levied. When people talk of a maximum of 20 per cent. as only applying to millionaires,

    1755
    they forget that quite apart from Estate Duty there is also the duty called Legacy and Succession Duty, and that it may occur in the case of a large estate that the total amount of the duty is not 20 per cent. but 30 per cent. You have to add to the total Estate Duty the amount of the Legacy or Succession Duty, which varies from 1 per cent. up to 10 per cent. It is these high rates of duties which we, as a Committee, have to consider. We have to see what in the past few years has been the accumulative effect of these two rates. This form of taxation has undoubtedly proved a failure as a fiscal instrument. Quite apart from that, I maintain that this particular form of taxation has one very apparent vice, which I think, so far, has not been mentioned in the Debate this evening. It is that by putting so much taxation on capital you are really paying out of the capital of the country your annual expenditure. I do not think that anybody can hold out any promise of the Death Duties being abolished, but I think the time has come when the whole question of the Death Duties should be seriously gone into—the question of their effect, their amount, and the general incidence wants quite as much careful inquiry as the question of the Income Tax, into which the Prime Minister has already promised an inquiry.
    I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us this afternoon that the same Committee which we believe is going to inquire next winter into the question of Income Tax will also make very careful inquiry indeed into the general question of Death Duties. We have to remember that though the Government are always talking about the amount of debt paid off during their term of office, they have also placed an enormous charge on capital during the time they have been in office. When they came into office in 1905–6, the total contribution of capital to the Exchequer was £13,000,000, and every year since then that amount has been gradually rising. Last year we found that it amounted to £27,000,000. It probably amounts now to no less than £28,750,000, which is simply a tax on part of the accumulated capital of the country, and, therefore, if they are paying off the debt of the country, it is only fair at the same time to mention that the Government are taking large additional
    1756
    sums from the ordinary capital of the country in order to pay off their regular liabilities.
    The Death Duties are very unsatisfactory as a fiscal instrument from the point of view of their being so precarious and unequal in their incidence. As has been pointed out they affect different families in totally different ways. You get one man living in one part of the country, and he is lucky enough to escape payment of these Death Duties. On the other hand, if you take a neighbour living next door, you find for some mysterious reason that his family fall into an unfortunate cycle of short lives. An unfortunate example of that was brought before us quite recently. Sir William Anson, who died a few weeks ago, lost two brothers within twelve months, and his nephew lost his life about two weeks ago. That is only one example of the unequal incidence of the duties. On the other hand, they are not at all fair in the rates at which they are now levied. I would very much like to support the view of the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs (Mr. R. Harcourt) when he said that the whole question should be carefully gone into and the rates revised. There is no doubt that the gaps are far too large, and that the tax would be very much diminished if it operated in ¼ or ½ per cents. instead of 1 per cent. as at present. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford has alluded to the question of the incidence of the Death Duties on agricultural property. It is true that the effect on agricultural property is severer than on other forms of property. A deceased person who leaves estate in the form of personal property leaves a form of property which is very much more disposable than an estate composed of real property. There are a great many agricultural estates which have gradually accumulated and which are commonly called ring fence estates. That particular kind of estate is worked upon as economic a basis as possible, and it is most difficult to sell one part of the estate without doing considerable damage to the other parts. I for one believe it would be far better both in the case of agricultural property and personal property if this form of taxation of capital, if we are to have it at all, could be levied on a regular period of years rather than on the occasion of the death of the owner. This is a great hardship. The people who really suffer, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are those who are engaged in cultivating or working upon

    1757
    the property. I believe that the imposition of this additional burden in the form of Death Duties is a very great mistake from the Treasury point of view. I believe that it would be far sounder to pay our way as we go along by an increased rate of Income Tax rather than by raising the Death Duties to the extraordinarily high figure to which they have now got, and I believe that any attempt to raise them once more will entirely destroy this form of taxation.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: The hon. Member for Chelmsford has drawn a distinction between Death Duties on land and on other forms of property.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not land alone. I said land used for purely agricultural purposes.
    Mr. PRICE: Why should you draw a distinction between agricultural land and any other form of property? A man can make provisions in the case of agricultural land in precisely the same way as if he were engaged in business. He can insure his Death Duties. There is infinitely more embarrassment caused in business by the Death Duties than there is in the case of any form of land. If a partner in a business dies, it is a very serious source of embarrassment very often to find the necessary capital. Therefore, to say that a man owning agricultural land is in a worse position than a man with his money invested in business, is absolutely fallacious. Not only so, but the man who owns agricultural land can sell part of his land, while the man with money invested in business cannot sell part of his machinery or part of his property in order to meet the Death Duties. The only way that he can meet it is by increasing his insurance, and that is open to the man with agricultural land. Therefore, to put a man who has invested his money in agricultural land in a preferential position with regard to Death Duties, as compared with the man who has invested a similar amount of money in business, would be grossly unfair. In listening to the speech of the hon. Member I was reminded of speeches which I used to read of Cobden and Bright urging that money invested in land should be subjected to the same principles as money invested in any other kind of property, and the hon. Member who speaks in that manner at this time of day seems to be entirely out of date. I quite sympathise with men who have to pay these very heavy Death Duties. It would have
    1758
    been ten times better if this House had adopted the plea of so many corporations in the country who petitioned for the right to rate upon land values. To men owning property, whether their money is invested in machinery or anything else, these Death Duties are a very serious matter. The present position has all been brought about by the fact that this House has not listened to the appeal which has come from the corporations in order that they might rate upon land value. Instead of adopting that course, the House is now proceeding to increase Death Duties and Income Tax. That is not the best way to meet the situation, and it would have been ten times better to have acceded to the appeal of the corporations and given them the right to rate land values.
    Sir ALEXANDER HENDERSON: In urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the Death Duties set up in the Schedule, I would make an appeal to him, basing the appeal upon the injury done to the commerce of the country by the existing rates, and the evidently greater injuries that will be done if these rates are increased. I know that from time to time experienced financiers have pointed out to him that the present scale of the Death Duties has necessitated the realisation of securities for raising the capital required, and the result has been a depreciation in price without parallel in the history of the country. The present Death Duties require a realisation of Stock Exchange securities to the extent of nearly £500,000 per week. That, as a rule, is a larger amount than the markets are able to absorb. The whole principle of the Death Duties is bad. A tax upon capital for revenue purposes must be unsound, and when Death Duties reach these high figures they become to my mind a scandal. Since the Death Duties were rearranged in the year 1894–5, I find that some £400,000,000 of the nation's capital has been absorbed by these various estate duties. A large proportion of that £400,000,000 has been gathered in during the past few years since the present Administration came into Office. The reduction of debt of which they are very proud should, at any rate, equal the amount of those Death Duties. It is only a question of opinion, but I think that it can be shown easily that the community is suffering greatly from this form of tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 4th May last gave a quotation from

    1759
    some authority to the effect that the increase in the National savings since 1909 has reached the enormous figure of £1,750,000,000. I can quite understand why the Chancellor did not comment on that quotation, but it was given with the obvious intention of convincing his followers that all was well with the country's finance. I would like to give a few figures which I think will dispose of this contention. Since the Government came into office in 1906, the value of nearly all Stock Exchange securities has declined by nearly 20 per cent., and I maintain that to a very considerable extent this decline is due to the realisation necessitated by the Death Duties. Consols in 1905 stood at 91. They are now at 75. This is a drop of 16 points, equivalent to 17¾ per cent. Securities in industrial undertakings have fallen in even greater proportion. The highest class of railway debenture preference stocks are fully 20 per cent. lower than in 1905, and in the case of stocks which are less secure the fall has been even greater. The "Banker's Magazine," which, I think, is generally recognised in financial circles as being an authority, gives a valuation of 327 representative securities. On the 20th October, 1909, the value of these securities was £3,732,000,000. On the 20th May this year the quotations gave a value of £3,385,000,000. That is a fall on these securities alone of no less than £347,000,000. These are representative securities, mainly securities in which the English investor is interested. From December, 1905, to October, 1909, the "Financial Times" finds that the decline had amounted to approximately the same figure, so that since the Government came into office we have the tremendous decline of £700,000,000 on 300 representative securities alone. There are over 4,000 securities which—
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: How many are foreign securities?
    Sir A. HENDERSON: A very large number, and a very large number of foreign securities are held by English investors. I should be very well within the mark in putting the total depreciation since 1905 at well over £1,000,000,000 sterling. I am only dealing now with Stock Exchange securities, but other property besides stocks and shares has declined greatly in value. It is not too much to assume that a great deal more of all the people's savings during the past few years
    1760
    has been swallowed up by depreciation. It is a bold statement to make, but I think that anyone who cares to examine the figures available must come to that conclusion. During the past nine years, you had a period of unexampled good trade in which the turnover has been enormous. The profits upon that turnover have not been enormous, but they have been considerable. But all the earnings and all the savings that have been made during the past nine years of unexampled prosperity have been lost by the depreciation which has taken place in the value of the securities and stocks and shares and property of various kinds. I feel sure that any authority will admit that a very large part of this depreciation is due to the incidence of the Death Duties.
    If the savings of the people have been on the scale referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how comes it that there has been practically no growth in the amount which pays Death Duties? If the decline in value of securities which has amounted to £1,000,000,000 in the last five years should continue, how will the Revenue benefit by the higher Death Duties now imposed? I have a particular estate before me. It is a large estate and therefore would not I am afraid meet with very much sympathy from hon. Members on the other side. It is an estate composed of Consols, Indian 3 per cent. stock, Irish guaranteed stock, Canadian Government stock, London and North "Western Preference stock, Great Western Debenture stock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up,"]—and some miscellaneous securities. The total value of the securities on the 1st January, 1906, when administration was obtained, was £1,000,000. They were reviewed on the 1st of this month, and the value then was £797,000. Taking the higher class of stocks, you have a depreciation on the whole of 20 per cent.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: What about the earning power?
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir A. HENDERSON: The stocks are all about the same fixed rate of interest, with the exception of a certain amount in railway ordinary stock, the interest on which, as hon. Members know, has not been very much of late years, and it is less now than it was in 1905–6. My point in giving these figures is that 15 per cent. over the value in 1906 would have produced £150,000. If you get 20 per cent. it means a little more than £150,000, and in view of the dis-

    1761
    turbing or further disintegrating of securities, I ask whether it is worth while to raise these taxes. I hardly expect to have very much sympathy for those who have to pay duty on estates, but in a commercial nation it is often the big capitalists who keep the little ones going, and, cannot help hurting all. A man's business very largely depends on the amount of capital he has at his disposal, and anything which involves the withdrawal of 20 per cent. means the reduction by 20 per cent. of the business concern, and it means a considerable reduction of the credit that concern will be able to give to other and smaller undertakings. Economy in handling results comes from doing business on a large scale, and if you reduce the size of the transaction you increase the cost of every article. It has been proved over and over again that where the smaller merchant has from time to time been wiped out of existence, it has been, not because he has had a better business man competing against him, but because it has been individuals or a combination of individuals who have had larger capital, and who have undoubtedly been able to practically wipe him out of existence.
    The failure of one large firm has on many occasions in the past demonstrated the fact that upon one pivot many important issues revolve, and that great ruin has frequently followed the overthrow of that pivot. Hon. Members must know that where there have been great failures in the City of London they have been attended with the most unexpected results all over the country. The support of wealth in connection with the commerce of a country such as ours is very far reaching. There can be no doubt at all that the lowering of the prices to which I have referred corresponds with what has occurred in other countries, but it should be remembered that some of the nations have greatly increased their indebtedness during the past decade, whilst it is claimed by the present Administration that ours has been reduced. While I admit that some part of the fall in prices has been due to the increased cost of living and to the additional Income Tax, I am quite sure that a large part is due to the incidence of the Death Duties, and this decline must continue if the system, which I call spoliation that is contemplated by the Clause, should become law. We have had a most unexampled period of prosperity, but there is every sign that that prosperity as waning, and during the next few years
    1762
    I am afraid that the outlook will not be very good. Is this then the period when these additional burdens should be pressed upon the shoulders of that class who have it in their power to make more money for the community? You cannot take away capital from the big firms without doing an immense amount of damage not only to the firm itself but to all those who have any connection with the business of the country.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I think that the hon. Baronet opposite in referring to the reduction in value of 385 securities, and who quoted figures from the "Bankers' Magazine" to show that the decrease was due to the Death Duties, has tried to prove a great deal too much. Those 385 securities are very largely foreign securities, and, in regard to these, the fall which has taken place all over the world in securities cannot be attributed to the British Death Duties which amount to about £27,000,000. I am sure that the hon. Baronet will realise that the world to-day is spending a great deal more on armaments than it did formerly, and we have to very largely attribute the decline in securities all over the world to that expenditure. I am aware that I am not entitled to go into that subject at the present moment, but I submit that the decline is due to the fact that we are spending to-day a great deal more on armaments than when the Government came into office, while the securities in other countries of the world have largely fallen by reason of similar expenditure. As a matter of fact, when we take into consideration the amount of money that we spend on our armaments, which is this year eighty-seven and a half millions, and, when you take into account that the men of the Army and Navy are taken from productive employment, we are wasting at least £150,000,000 a year. This is far more effective in reducing the price of securities than any amount of Death Duties now raised. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the money which is being spent on armaments is unproductive. If that money were not spent on armaments, the accumulated savings could be devoted to the furthering of the industries of the country. I agree that a great deal that has been said about the Death Duties is absolutely correct. Their unfairness arises from the fact that they are so unevenly distributed. You may have in one case an estate which passes only twice in a century from grandfather to son and grandson, while in the case of other families the estates may pass

    1763
    ten times in a century. I think it would be far better for the whole community if the Income Tax were raised and the Death Duties reduced.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has taken note of the general tenour of this Debate, which has been carried on, I hope, in no controversial spirit. Everybody who has spoken on either side of the House, differing though they may on many important political or economic questions, are agreed, in the first place, that this is a very unequal tax, and, in the second place, that it has diminished capital rather than income—that it does diminish capital, so far as it goes, rather than income, and it is largely paid, therefore, into the Exchequer as capital, instead of being paid into the Exchequer as income. I think both of those circumstances ought to give us pause. We have two things to consider in dealing with taxation—justice to the individual taxpayer, and, in the second place, the effect upon the general economic conditions of the community by the imposition of the tax. I am not, of course, going to discuss whether or not the very high graduation between Income Tax and Death Duties now imposed is a just graduation or an unjust graduation, or a dangerous graduation from the point of view of public morality, or one that we are right in undertaking. I have always been in favour, in principle, of some form of graduation. I have always felt, as everybody must feel, that graduation, however just, if properly applied, is very easily abused; but it is more and more easily abused when the number of people who pay is diminished in proportion to the number of people who vote; and, therefore, it is the bounden duty of every Government, and of every Minister responsible for the finance of the country, to watch jealously lest an equitable arrangement as between the different scales of incomes should decline into an inequitable scale, and to see that decline is not being pursued by the National Exchequer.
    But that is not the point I want to deal with. I will assume that as between one given income and another the present system of graduation is just and equitable. I am assuming that for the sake of argument, and without prejudice. It is admitted, as regards the individual, that the taxation is harsh—that is to say, harsh and unjust as between different properties
    1764
    of the same size. Let us look for one moment and see whether it is good from the point of view of the general interests of the community. We have had two or three speeches dealing with the hardship of this particular tax on different kinds of property. There was a very powerful speech delivered by my hon. Friend near me on the increment of this taxation and the harshness of this taxation on purely agricultural land; and the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Edinburgh, got up and stated that, while he agreed that the Death Duties were a very great hardship on certain kinds of property, he did not see why agricultural land suffered more from this particular practice than, let us say, some business corporation, some business other than that of an individual, some business controlled by a small body of individuals, or a large joint-stock company. Then my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, got up and pointed out that this tax affected the general level of the price of securities, and all that hangs on the price of securities, being maintained at a reasonable and fair value. I think that all those statements were correct, that all those charges against its effect were well founded, and that all the hardships and injuries which have been detailed are unfortunately realised. I entirely agree. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, who thinks that, after all, some form of Henry Georgeism might apply. I think that is a profound and possibly mischievous delusion.
    Mr. PRICE: I did not suggest that. My point was that, in the increase in Death Duties and Income Tax, a large amount was brought about by improvements, and that it would be infinitely better to allow local authorities to rate land values. I mentioned nothing about Henry George.
    Mr. BALFOUR: It was the phrase as to "rating values" which led me into the error. At all events let me not dwell on points on which I differ from the hon. Gentleman, but let us be in happy agreement. Whether this taxation falls on agricultural land or whether it falls on business, about which he spoke so feelingly and I think with so much truth, this tax really does touch the springs of industry. I remember when this tax was first approaching, distantly approaching, its present scale, and was first recommended by Sir William Harcourt, he was

    1765
    fond of dwelling on the fact that, after all, nobody paid this tax except the man who was so happy at succeeding to a fortune that he was quite ready to give anything to the Exchequer in view of the increased means of which he became the owner. That very argument shows that this is a tax paid out of capital and not out of income. It all depends on that. If every man who came into a property felt that he had to find an insurance so that when he died the property would suffer no diminution, he would have no ground for that satisfaction which Sir William Harcourt seemed to think everybody felt when they came into property. The fact is that the only recommendation of Death Duties at all from the point of view of the taxpayer is that his successors do pay out of capital, or, in other words, the man who has property which goes to his heir avoids insuring in his own life, and leaves the accumulated burden, of which he ought to have borne his share, to be borne by those who come after them. That means, and only can mean, and only does mean, that this tax, broadly speaking, is very largely paid out of capital.
    Consider what the effects of that are. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northants (Mr. Chiozza Money) made what I thought was a most interesting speech earlier in the afternoon, and he took the view—though I am not sure that he laid it down dogmatically—that we had not diminished our savings. At all events, he thought that was negligible, because in his view there had been a great deal of saving even and certainly subsequent to the Finance Act of 1894, and subsequent to the increase of Death Duties which took place in 1909. I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman is so far right, and that there has been national saving since that time, and very likely national saving on a big scale. It would be absolutely disastrous if it were otherwise. Could we face the future, I will not say with equanimity, but with anything short of actual panic, if the saving of this country had been brought to an end by Death Duties or any other means, and the accumulations of capital had ceased? No, Sir, I do not take so dark a view of the position of this country as would be implied in any theory of that kind. I am ready to go further, and say that you never can deal with any of these things in isolation, and it must always be a mistake to look at certain defects and try and find for them a single
    1766
    cause, and say that the whole defect is due to this cause or to that. If the House is prepared to agree with me so far, must it not also agree that you should not so arrange your taxation as to tempt men to spend out of capital, and not out of income? If you compel, say a family, to spend out of capital, or a succession of individuals in a firm or on an estate, or whatever it may be, and if you so arrange your taxation as to tempt people to spend money out of capital, and not out of income, you must be doing, and you are doing, injury. Nobody, I am confident, will deny, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deny, whatever be the merits or the demerits of the Death Duties, they are a deliberate and intentional, or, at any rate, a deliberate temptation, to a succession of individuals to spend out of capital and to enjoy income while they may.
    Therefore I think the hon. Member for East Northants will probably agree, whatever you may think of the accumulations which have been going on in the country, they must have been, and have been diminished by the incidence of the Death Duties, except in so far as those Death Duties have been avoided by the transfer of the property between relations. That broad proposition I believe to be generally acceptable. Let me point out two corollaries, one relates to businesses, and the wage-earners who depend on businesses, and whether that business be landed estate or whether it be a manufacturing firm, it must be very bad. Let us take the example of the landed estate, and of the man who lives in a country house with the usual appurtenances. It cannot be good for the district in which that man lives that there should be a sudden change in the amount of employment given in that district at the moment of his death. It may be right, or it may be wrong, I do not argue the point, so to tax him that in fact he either cannot live in his place, or has to live on a greatly reduced scale. Whichever be the result in that case, you get equal employment in the district, but if you impose these enormous Death Duties constantly, that means in a large number of cases that on the death of the owner there is a sudden alteration in the whole scale of employment in the particular district where the estate is situated. That cannot be good. Take the case, which is of more interest to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, of a firm. He pointed out, and surely he pointed out

    1767
    with absolute truth, that if you take these vast masses of property out of a business you risk destroying the business absolutely. The destruction of a business, let the Committee remember, although I do not suppose they are disposed to forget it, means something very much more than the fact that a particular firm goes out of existence, and that a certain number of partners are either ruined or greatly reduced in circumstances. It means that the employment in that particular district undergoes a sudden revolution, and a revolution disastrous to the employés of the firm.
    That cannot be good. If there was a steady Income Tax that would be part of the expenses of the firm. It might be more, and it might be a great burden to the particular industry. Taxation is a burden to industry, better accept the fact; but, at all events, it would be an equal burden evenly distributed. I cannot doubt it must be much better, not merely for the firm themselves, but for those whom the firm employ and for the industry connected with the firm, if instead of these arbitrary slices taken out of capital, the firm had to pay some steady and permanent burden in their place. Let me now turn to the point raised in the very able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. He dealt with the larger matters of finance. Suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, that the last speaker was right in saying that my hon. Friend went too far in attributing the whole form of securities to British Death Duties. It may be so. There may be other contributory causes, and for most great phenomena of this kind there are contributory causes. But will anyone deny; will the last speaker deny, or is he disposed to deny, that the fact that the Exchequer has got to liquidate half a million of securities, or, I ought to say, that half a million of securities are weekly liquidated at the instance of the Exchequer, and to meet the demand of the Exchequer, that that has, and must have, a most pernicious effect upon the strength of market securities. This is not merely a question of the prosperity or the normal wealth, or real wealth of the individual holders of securities. It is a matter of national concern. This country is happily not a borrower at the present moment, but a moment of emergency might arise, and in this uncertain world it might arise at any
    1768
    time, which would compel this country to borrow. In addition, therefore, to asking the Stock Exchange to absorb half a million of securities every week, the Government of the day in that emergency would have to go to the Stock Exchange, and say, "We want to borrow so many millions to meet a national emergency." They would find securities depreciated largely by the operation of these forced sales, and on a market so depreciated, they would at a time of national necessity make a demand which would still further depreciate it.
    You therefore do really weaken the national position by making these compulsory sales of securities. That would not happen if you spread your taxes and if, instead of exacting taxes on property once in every ten years as sometimes happens, and once in every three years as sometimes happens, according to the arbitrary chances of life and death, you required people to pay their contributions to the Exchequer out of income. Those securities then would not be thrown on the market, and you would avoid that particular danger, that particular evil, and that particular weakness completely. Is there any man acquainted with finance, who has contemplated the high strain we may happen to throw on the market, and is there any man who watches the craze for borrowing which has gone over all Continental nations, and is there any man who foresees that in the future that borrowing is likely to increase instead of diminishing. Is there any man who has watched all those circumstances, who does not recognise that this forced weekly liquidation of half a million—that is £25,000,000 per year, which you get on the Death Duties, is almost equivalent to raising a loan every year of £25,000,000. I mean in its effect on the stock markets; and is there any man who doubts that that is really a great weakness, and maybe even a great national danger. There are other small points to which I will not allude, because the Debate has gone on a level of high national policy, so far on both sides of the House, so far as I have been able to judge, and I should desire to leave it there.
    I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply will indicate to us that though he has perpetuated the system and accentuated the evils in a manner which certainly Sir William Harcourt never contemplated, he will consider all that has been said on both sides. I hope he will consider

    1769
    in the first place that the tax appears to have become inelastic, that an increase in its rate does not increase its yield. I hope he will recognise that that fact does not mean that greatly raising the rate does not inflict great injury. It does not mean that. If you raise £25,000,000 this year at a higher rate than you raised £25,000,000 or whatever it was ten years ago, you do more injury by raising it now, because you are doing it at a higher rate. You inflict these spasmodic wounds on the capital invested in business, be it agriculture or be it any other, and these wounds are deeper because the rate is higher. So that although the Exchequer does not get more, the injury done by the tax is greater. I hope he will consider, in the second place, that the tax as it is now levied inflicts great, and indeed irremediable, injury upon certain families where the deaths are rapid. I know he is quite conscious of that, because he has admitted it. I hope he will realise also that the way in which the tax is levied must inflict injury upon the wage-earners in various districts by the inequalities introduced into the demand for labour. I need not recapitulate what I have just said about the injury done to the national credit by this monthly sale of £2,500,000 or thereabouts of securities. Taking all these things into account, I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel that if this great burden of differential taxation is to be raised on property, some more equitable and more expedient machinery must be devised for raising it than that which in this Budget he has, as I think unhappily, chosen to adopt.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have had an interesting speech from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour); in fact, as he himself pointed out, we have had a very interesting Debate throughout the last two hours on the lines of a consideration of the policy of the Death Duties as a whole—a very proper question for the House of Commons to consider from time to time. There was one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which gave me some comfort. It was that in which he dwelt upon the comparative moderation of Sir William Harcourt's proposals and the extreme character of mine. I remember the attacks that were made in 1894 upon Sir William Harcourt's original proposals. They were very largely on the lines of the present criticism, except that the language was much more violent in those days than it is to-day. I might even congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on
    1770
    the comparative moderation of his language to-day as compared with his language in 1894. It is a very important consideration whether this is the best method of raising a sum of money. For the purposes of this argument you must assume that it is necessary that the money should be raised. I could not enter into the question of the expenditure. When the right hon. Gentleman says that this touches the springs of industry, all taxation touches the springs of industry, and unnecessary taxation is very damaging to industry. But that is a consideration for Committee of Supply. I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, have to take the Bill presented to me by the Committee of the House of Commons, and find the best method of raising that particular sum of money. That is the problem with which the Committee at the present moment is confronted, and that is the only question to which I can address myself in this Debate. Is this a better way of raising the money than either of the alternative suggestions which have been made? Only two alternative suggestions have been put forward. No one to-day has suggested indirect taxation. The first suggestion was that of an Income Tax which levied this sum of money annually. The other, which I think the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) first suggested, was the method of a periodical tax. The right hon. Gentleman I will not say gave the sanction of his authority to that, but he rather indicated that it was a method which he would like to see considered.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think I said that. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. He is so far right, that I emphasised very strongly the desirability of its being a regular and foreseeable tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will take the suggestion that it should be a regular and foreseeable tax. It is substantially the same thing. It is either an annual tax or a quinquennial tax, or a tax for some other period. It is a periodical tax. I will try to follow the right hon. Gentleman's line of argument. He says that when you dump down £500,000 worth of securities every week you are bound to have a depreciation of securities. That is true; there is no doubt about that at all. But let us take the alternative. I will assume that the State wants—to take a round figure—£30,000,000.

    1771
    If you raise it by means of Death Duties you sell £500,000 worth of securities a week. What happens if you take it out of Income Tax? We are the greatest investing country in the world. Taking this country and outside, we invest at the rate of something like £300,000,000 a year. We have invested even this year about £166,000,000—that is, taking not merely this country, but abroad—every kind of investment. I will take any figure the hon. Baronet gives. I do not want to dispute about non-essentials. He will admit that we are the greatest investing country in the world. It is estimated by one who, I believe, is the greatest living authority on these questions since Sir Robert Giffin—Sir George Paish, who has been his successor in the statistical world—that our savings come to £350,000,000 a year. What would happen if, instead of taking this money out of Death Duties, you took it out of Income Tax? You would have £30,000,000 less to invest. It is exactly the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    I should like to present my point of view. After all, all this money is invested out of savings. If you take more out of income, to that extent you have less to save and you have less to invest. Take this £500,000 of securities a week—who buys them? They are bought out of the savings of other people. If you save less by £30,000,000, to that extent you have less money with which to buy securities, and it is bound to affect the market. If the right hon. Gentleman says, "It is wrong; you ought not to raise that £30,000,000 at all," that is a different proposition. I do not think there is substantially any difference between raising the money by this method and raising it by an annual tax. The argument is in favour of the latter—within limits, I agree. When a tax is raised it is always assumed—in criticising the Government we use much the same sort of language—that the State is taking money away, and the usual phrase is "robbery," which means that you are taking money away and giving nothing in return. Let me put this to the hon. Baronet, who made such a very interesting speech earlier in the Debate. He says, "You are depreciating securities by means of taxation." I will assume for a moment that you did not spend the money. If you did not spend the money you would not require to raise it by this or any other method. Suppose you did not spend the money; that your defences were inade-
    1772
    quate; that your education was inferior to that of Germany, the United States, and other countries; that no technical instruction was given; that you did not equip your people to make them fit to take part in the struggle with other great industrial and commercial nations; suppose you neglected the public health, and that by these means you reduced your taxation; does the hon. Baronet think that he would keep up the price of securities by that method? Quite the reverse.
    Sir A. HENDERSON Sir A. HENDERSON made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the point. That does not deal with the point which I am putting. My point is that, although raising large taxation must necessarily have a great effect on what the right hon. Gentleman very fairly called the springs of industry, still, if you spend an inadequate amount, an amount which is not adequate to our national needs, your securities will depreciate far more. Will the hon. Baronet deny that? Suppose you did not spend enough on the Navy. Suppose that whereas you ought to spend £50,000,000 you spent only £25,000,000, with the result that your Navy was inferior to the Navy of other Powers, you would be in a weak position—you could not defend yourself against a foreign Power. Does the hon. Baronet mean to say that, although you might save £15,000,000 in expenditure, the depreciation of securities would not be very much more? My hon. Friend said that was open to argument whether £50,000,000 was not too much. But for the purposes of this argument I must take the hon. Gentleman as assuming that we are not spending enough, whatever the figure is. Therefore, the real question, when you come to discuss the depreciation of securities, is whether the money has been properly and profitably spent for the benefit of the nation. If you are not spending enough, your securities will pretty soon depreciate—whether your spending is on education, public health, or on defence. I take one other point put by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet said that there had been a considerable fall in securities during the time the present Administration had been in power. Was that a perfectly fair statement? He comes here as a financial authority. Is the hon. Baronet quite fair to the Committee of the House of Commons when he says, or rather suggests,

    1773
    that securities have fallen since the present Administration came into power. Is it fair?
    I will give him figures. The average price—the middle price of Consols in 1905 was 89½. Consols now stand at about 75. That is a drop, I agree, of 14½ points. Was there no fall before 1905? I know the point put by the hon. Baronet, and he knows it is a false one. If a person knew that the rate of interest was going to be 2¾ per cent. for twenty years, I agree that that would make a difference to the price, but when it was known that the rate of interest was coming down in a year or two, that made a difference in the price. He knows that perfectly well. People knew that at a given date the price was to come down to 2½, and the hon. Baronet knew that when he raised the point. The hon. Baronet gives his reason for the fall during the time of the present Administration. His colleague the hon. Member for the City gives another reason for the fall during the previous period. I want to point out that the fall before the present Administration came into office was much greater than the fall which has occurred since. The hon. Baronet knows very well that the suggestion that was made was that the fall in securities has occurred since we came into office, and that it was largely due to our policy in regard to the Death Duties. I point out to him that the fall in securities was greater before we came into office than it has been since. Here is another point which the hon. Baronet has ignored altogether, and that is the fall in foreign securities. He knows very well that in some of our Colonies and in America the fall has been disastrous compared with the fall which has occurred to securities of the same kind in this country. I will give him another figure, and one which he cannot challenge.
    Take France and Germany. Take German Three Per Cents. During the same period they have fallen 13½ points. In France—and French credit will not be challenged by the hon. Baronet or anybody else—the fall during the same period has been 15½ points, just one point heavier than the fall in our securities. What does that mean? Of course you can always explain away how it has been done. I am coming to that point. But I am just coming to the point that the method by which we raise the money is better than the method by which they raise the money abroad. We have endeavoured to face our liabilities
    1774
    year by year. It is perfectly true we have divided them between Death Duties and the Income Tax. Abroad they raise huge sums of money by loans, and the result undoubtedly has been disastrous to their securities. The hon. Baronet never pointed out, that you had a larger fall in French securities than in ours. French, securities stood in 1905 at 98½. They now stand at 83. That is a fall of 15½ points. In our case the middle price in 1905 was 89½. To-day it is 75; that is 14½ points.
    Sir A. HENDERSON: The highest price is taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up,"]—of French Rentes, and the highest price should also be taken for Consols. That would give a drop of between 16 and 17 points.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am loath to enter into a discussion with the hon. Baronet on a matter upon which he is undoubtedly an authority. But if he will look at the figures he will find that I am quoting the middle price in each case. He ignored the considerations I have stated, and I am sorry to say that criticism of the Administration always ignores them. Not a word has been said about depreciation in foreign securities which is sometimes equal to, and sometimes greater than, ours. Not a word is said about the reason which has accounted more than anything else for the fall in securities—the hon. Baronet glanced at it!—and that is the tremendous trade boom which has absorbed capital, and which enabled investors to get a higher rate of interest for their investments than they were getting for Consols. The hon. Baronet knows perfectly well that a rate which would satisfy people in 1899 would not satisfy them at the present time. That is why the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire was a perfectly proper one. He asked, "What about the earning power of these securities?" The earning power of these securities is the same, but people will not invest at the same rate of interest as then. The hon. Baronet has given the weight of his authority to a prediction—and I am surprised at it—that there will be a still further fall in securities of these kinds. Is he quite sure of it? It is good trade that has very largely depreciated all securities. Is he quite sure if we have slack trade that there will be the same opportunities for investment? Is he quite sure that the price of these securities will not go up? It is a very serious thing for him to give the weight of his authority to that prediction.
    Sir A. HENDERSON Sir A. HENDERSON made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know, and that is why I was so surprised at the hon. Baronet. If he said it was possible—well, of course, anything is possible. But he says in his judgment it is probable. I am surprised to hear him say so.
    Sir A. HENDERSON: It is quite probable.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the position. It is a question of finding a certain sum of money. I think I have answered one or two points which have been made by the hon. Baronet, and I should like before I sit down—because I have only a moment or two left—to say one or two words upon the general consideration. If I may revert to it again, it is a very arguable question whether you ought to raise money by means of Death Duties or by means of Income Tax. Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman opposite: Is he quite sure that the method he has suggested is an easier method of doing it? He has put two considerations which are taken into account when levying a tax. First of all, there is a question of justice, and, secondly, there is a question of its effect upon business. But surely there is a third consideration—and it is an axiomatic one—and that is the ease with which the subject can pay the particular tax. That surely ought to be brought into account! It is not quite the same thing as the first two. Let me give him a case of this kind: If you raise this £30,000,000 by means of the Income Tax, this document which has been issued shows that you increase the Income Tax by sums varying from 6d. to 3s. 4d. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that will be an easier method for the subject? Take a case of this kind: What happens when a man inherits property? I am taking now not the case of the man who comes fortuitously into property which he did not expect. If you take the case of a man, say, who has come into half a million of money, if you take a few thousands or a few tens of thousands from him, he has still got a good slice of luck left. I am not taking that.
    I am taking the case of a man who has a right, according to all the usages of civilisation, to expect that he will come into property. He may be a son, say, who is given an income of two or three
    1776
    thousand a year to live upon. He has expected to inherit property where the income will be, let us say, £20,000—I do not care what figures are taken—but where the income that he comes into by inheritance is trebled or quadrupled, and even more largely increased to what lie had had during the time he has been living upon the bounty, as it were, of his parents. Is it not very much easier for him, when he comes into his inheritance, to make a contribution to the State, and especially to make an increased contribution to the State—because that is a very important point—than after he has fixed his expenditure? Then if the State comes in and says, "I want so much, more," he has to go through the process of cutting down his expenses—a very difficult process for anybody. I should have thought that that was a much better opportunity for getting a contribution from the subject than if you were to tax him at an extra rate of 2s. 6d. during the whole period of his career. At any rate I think it is a fairly arguable proposition. The view the Government have taken is that, on the whole, you should take the bulk of the taxing income. That is what we have done.
    We have taken more by means of taxing income than by means of Death Duties. In the present Budget that is the principle I have gone upon. The amount which I am raising by means of increased Income Tax is considerably more than the amount I am raising by means of Death Duties. I do say that, at any rate, that it is a case where you are entitled not to put the whole upon income—to put the bulk upon income, to put the larger proportion upon income—but at the same time to tax not merely fortuitous accessions of wealth, but even to tax those others where a man gains a great accession of income which, although he has a right to expect it, is none the less enjoyable when he does get it. That I think is a very fair answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he and his colleagues when they have to face the same problem will find that it will be very difficult for them to put the whole burden upon income without at the same time raising an additional sum out of capital in some shape or other. The German Empire has come to that conclusion. It is true they levy it during lifetime. They have got a capital tax—I am not now referring to the huge sum of about £60,000,000 they are raising. Every country in the world does it. We levy it at death. We think, on the whole, that

    1777
    is a much better opportunity or "occasion"—to use a technical term—for the purpose of raising the cash.
    It being Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 8th July, to put the
    Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 207.

    Division No. 167.]

    AYES.

    [7.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Doris, William

    King, Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

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

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Leach, Charles

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Alden, Percy

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Armitage, Robert

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lundon, Thomas

    Arnold, Sydney

    Falconer, James

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Field, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Maclean, Donald

    Barnes, George N.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scale, Sir William Phipson

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Ginnell, Laurence

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

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Manfield, Harry

    Bentham, G. J.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Black, Arthur W.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Boland, John Pius

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Meagher, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Millar, James Duncan

    Brace, William

    Gulland, John William

    Molloy, Michael

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hackett, John

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hancock, John George

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mooney, John J.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Buxton, Noel

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morison, Hector

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hayward, Evan

    Muldoon, John

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hewart, Gordon

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clough, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Clynes, John R.

    Hinds, John

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hodge, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cotton, William Francis

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Dowd, John

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Crooks, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Cullinan, John

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Johnson, W.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Da Forest, Baron

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Dillon, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Pratt, J. W.

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

    Waring, Walter

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

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

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Sheeny, David

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Watt, Henry A.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Webb, H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Radford, George Heynes

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Reddy, Michael

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Whittaker. Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Tennant. Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thomas, James H.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Robinson, Sidney

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wardle, George J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Croft, H. P.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Currie, George W.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Baker, Sir Randolf (Dorset, N.)

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Kerry, Earl of

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Keswick, Henry

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Barnston, Harry

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gardner, Ernest

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Bird, Alfred

    Gibbs, G. A.

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Boyton, James

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Grant, James Augustus

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Macmaster, Donald

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gretton, John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Burgoyne, A. H.

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Butcher, John George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Campion, W. R.

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

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

    Cassel, Felix

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Cator, John

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Newman, John R. P.

    Cautley, H. S.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Cave, George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Nield, Herbert

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hills, John Waller

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hill-Wood. Samuel

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    1780

    1781

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Stanier, Beville

    Valentia, Viscount

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Starkey, John R.

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Rolleston, Sir J. D.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Royds, Edmund

    Swift, Rigby

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M.(Bethnal Green. S.W.)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

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

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Sandys, G. J.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Younger, Sir George

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Tickler, T. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Mr. Fell and Mr. Hicks Beach.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    CLAUSE 10.—(Abolition of Settlement Estate Duty and of Relief in respect of Settled Property.)
    Any relief from the payment of Estate Duty given by (Sub-section (2) of Section five, or by Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1894 (which relate to settled property), or by Sub-section (16) of Section twenty-three of that Act (which relates to entailed estates in Scotland) shall cease in the case of any person dying after the fifteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, and Settlement Estate Duty shall not be levied in the case of persons dying after the eleventh day of May, nineteen hundred and fourteen.
    Provided that—

    (a) Nothing in this Section shall affect the relief given by the above-mentioned provisions of the Finance Act, 1894, in cases where Estate Duty or any of the duties specified in Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of that Act have been paid upon the death of one of the parties to a marriage, so fas as respects the payment of Estate Duty on the death of the other party to the marriage; and

    (b) on the first occasion on which Estate Duty becomes payable in respect of any property, which would not have been payable but for this Section, the amount of Settlement Estate Duty, if any, which has been paid in respect of that property, shall be allowed against the amount of Estate Duty payable on that occasion, and if it exceeds that amount, the excess shall be repaid to the Estate.

    Mr. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. I want to put to you, Mr. Whitley, whether
    1782
    this Clause as drafted does not go beyond the Resolution upon which the Clause is founded; in other words, whether the taxation proposed by the Clause on the Paper is not in excess of the taxation authorised by the Resolution upon which the Bill is brought in? May I say shortly that the Resolution as originally drafted, upon which this Clause is founded, had this effect, that it made settled property pay duty when passing at death. When that Resolution came up on Report I proposed an exemption which the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted, and which was that when settled property passed from husband to wife, or from wife to husband, Estate Duty should not be payable. When we come to see how that exemption is worked out in the Clause it appears to me, at any rate, that the Clause does not carry out the intention of the Resolution. Proviso (a) says:—
    "Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the relief given by the above-mentioned provisions of the Finance Act, 1894, in cases where Estate Duty or any of the duties specified in the Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of that Act have been passed upon the death of one of the parties to a marriage, as far as respects the payment of Estate Duty on the death of the other party to the marriage."
    If you read these words in their natural signification they would limit this exemption to cases where Death Duties were paid before the passing of the Act, and in that way would give a more restricted exemption than authorised by the Resolution; and the result would be that the Clause would impose more taxation than was authorised by the Resolution. Therefore my point is this: that the words "have been paid" referred to settled duties paid before the passing of this Act,

    1783
    and I submit that the Clause is out of order, and that if the words include cases where the duties are paid after the Act has come into operation, then the Clause would be out of order. As the Clause is drafted it appears to me that these words require consideration before they are inserted. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Solicitor-General will tell me they will introduce an Amendment which I think is absolutely necessary to make it clear and to make it in order according to the Resolution, well and good. I do not think it would be in order for them to do so, but my point at present is that the Clause, as drafted, goes beyond the Resolution upon which it is founded.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for having given me sufficient time to look carefully into this point which he has raised. I have done so. I do not hold the view which he has just submitted to me as to the meaning of these words. I do not read them at all as if they had after them the words "before the commencement of this Act." My opinion of the drafting is that it carries out what the House decided in Ways and Means. On a point of Order, I do not think the hon. Member's point holds good that the Clause failed for the reason that it goes beyond the decision of the House on the Resolution of Ways and Means.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I point out to you that this Act abolishes that Section dealing with cases where Estate Duty or any of the duties specified in Section 21 of that Act, and therefore I cannot see how they can continue to be paid in the future, because this Act abolishes the Subsection under which these payments have been made. Therefore, when that Subsection is abolished the payments can no longer continue, and the result will be that the duty will fall between husband and wife and go beyond the Act.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. Buckmaster): This Clause makes certain provision that the relief should apply to the altered circumstances. I have not the least doubt that the words carry out what the hon. Member opposite desires, but if there is any doubt about it I will take care that the words are made quite clear.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has raised another point of order not
    1784
    entirely on all-fours with that upon which you, Mr. Whitley, have just ruled. This Section of the Finance Act, 1894, is found in a Schedule of Repeals, and therefore that is a separate point. If that part of the Act is repealed, then the exemptions given by that Act go, and therefore persons who would otherwise have escaped taxation had those exemptions been retained will now be taxed because those exemptions are by this Act repealed. Under the Resolution there is a complete exemption intended in certain circumstances for property passing from husband to wife, or from wife to husband. The Bill provides that that shall occur only in certain circumstances to which the Finance Act of 1894 applies, but these Clauses of the Finance Act of 1894 are repealed by this Act, and so that limitation is simply added to the Resolution, and really, now a new set of people will suffer taxation in the sense that they will not be exempted.
    The CHAIRMAN: As I read the Clause, I think the proviso gives the relief set out in the Resolution on which this Clause is founded. As I read this Section, it does carry out the relief which was assented to by the House in the Resolution of Ways and Means.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The difficulty has arisen from leaving out the words "or payable," which words are found in Section 21 of the Act of 1894. If the words "or payable" were added after the word "pay" it would make the Clause exactly the same as Section 21 of the Act of 1894, and would get rid of all the difficulty, and then you would not have to-refer to a former Bill. I think the Government will probably accept that suggestion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a point of legal interpretation which I do not feel competent to argue upon, but I am advised that it is already covered by the Clause as drafted. If there is the slightest doubt about it we shall be prepared to accept any words that would place, the matter beyond question.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot quite see how an exemption under a Clause which is repealed can continue. That is the whole point. The exemption is given here from payment under a certain Clause, but that Clause is actually repealed by this very Bill we are now passing. If you look

    1785
    at the Fifth Schedule on page 24 of the Bill you will see:—

    57 & 58 Vict. c. 30.

    The Finance Act, 1894.

    Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section five; Section nineteen; Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-one.

    That Sub-section is definitely repealed by this very Bill, and I cannot see how it is possible that the exemption under the Clause can still continue.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite makes a very ingenious point, but there is one thing very well understood, and it is that every Bill has to be taken as a whole. In Section 10 (a) you find an express reference to an express concession, and therefore that concession exists and continues whatever you find in the repealing Schedule.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is possible that an Amendment may be needed on that point in the Schedule. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some Amendments down on that very line. I think that disposes of the point of Order. With regard to the Amendments on this Clause, the first one I propose to call upon is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, after the words "Provided that," to insert the folloiwng,
    "(a) Nothing in this Section shall affect the relief given by the above-mentioned provisions of the Finance Act, 1894, when Settlement Estate Duty has been paid, or become payable, before the passing of this Act; and."
    This Amendment is to prevent this Clause applying retrospectively to settlements in respect of which Settlement Estate Duty has been paid before this Bill comes into force. We are dealing now not merely with a question of policy or expediency, but a question of justice, honour, and good faith on the part of the State. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself when he realises how unfairly this proposal would operate if it were carried out retrospectively, when I have called his attention to what he has said about this duty as a proposition, he will find himself compelled to adopt this Amendment. In order to consider this question you have to go back to the Act of 1894, when these graduated Estate Duties were first introduced by Sir William Harcourt. Up to that date only personal property was subject to the
    1786
    3 per cent. Probate Duty, and Sir William Harcourt made, for the first time, real property subject to Death Duties, and he made settled and unsettled property alike subject to those duties in a graduated form. When he was dealing with the whole question he considered very carefully the case of settled property in regard to which he deliberately came to the conclusion that it would not be fair to impose the Estate Duties on the death of every tenant for life under the settlement. I shall refer to the passage in which Sir William Harcourt said it would not be fair, because the tenant for life has, after all, only a limited interest, and he cannot dispose of the property as he likes. He could not, for instance, avoid the Death Duties by making a gift during his lifetime, and so the State has the advantage in the case of a settlement that the duty cannot be avoided by that means. Taking all these facts into consideration Sir William Harcourt stated deliberately that he thought it was only fair that the duty should be only payable once during the currency of the settlement. But as that might give some advantage to settled property over unsettled property, he imposed this additional duty called the Settlement Estate Duty which was originally 1 per cent., but which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now raised to 2 per cent. At the time when the Finance Bill of 1894 was introduced a Memorandum was circulated which makes it perfectly clear that this was intended to be a bargain between the State and the House of Commons, not in the sense of an ordinary contract, because that does not take place; but it is such action on the part of the State that the subject was reasonably entitled to suppose that upon any principle of fair and honest dealing the State would never go back upon that which it said it was going to do. Here are the words of the Memorandum which accompanied the Act of 1894:—
    "Settled property having paid Estate Duty will be exempted from further payment of that duty during the continuance of the settlement, but in consideration of that exemption will pay an additional Estate Duty of 1 per cent."
    The very words of the Memorandum are couched in the language of a bargain, because it is said to be in consideration of the payment of 1 per cent. that the settlement is to have the benefit of this exemption. I should like also to call attention to what Sir William Harcourt said when he

    1787
    was introducing the duty in the course of the Budget when this duty was first imposed. He said:—
    "In the case of settlement, when property is now settled by will, probate is charged once on the corpus of the property, and this payment covers all the limitations of the settlement."
    I should like to call particular attention to the following words:—
    "It is felt that it would not be fair to require a full payment on each devolution within the scope of the settlement when the beneficiary takes only limited interest, and thus treat a man with only a life interest on the same footing as one who had the absolute disposal of the estate."
    So that on the original introduction of the duty. Sir William Harcourt made it perfectly clear that he considered this to be unfair. He goes on to say:—
    "We now, therefore, propose to assimilate the treatment of property under all kinds of settlements to that now in force respecting settlements made by will. But, as the single payment in respect of the whole settlement may result in a diminished total produce of the tax, we propose to levy an additional 1 per cent. on all property under settlement to recoup this loss."
    The right hon. Gentleman to-day takes a different view from Sir William Harcourt, and he now thinks that is fair which Sir William Harcourt considered unfair. If I may say so he has relegated the views of Sir William Harcourt in this respect to the dust-bin of ancient precedents, although 1894 is not very long ago. I am prepared for the moment even to admit that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to have a different mind from Sir William Harcourt, and to say he considers that fair which Sir William Harcourt considered unfair, but the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to rip up transactions for value which have actually been carried out by the payment of money under that which Sir William Harcourt prescribed. It may be that so far as the future is concerned he is entitled to say, "I take a different view from Sir William Harcourt," but, with regard to the past where payments have been made on the faith of that which Sir William Harcourt said was fair, he is not entitled to rip up those transactions and to attempt to make repayment which he will find it quite impossible to make to the right person. The right hon. Gentleman himself has dealt with this matter before, because he increased the Settlement Estate Duty from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. in 1909. I would first call attention to the fact that he did not make that retrospective, but on his present principle he ought to have exacted the 2 per cent. from the people who had already paid 1 per cent. In those days the right hon. Gentleman
    1788
    recognised the real nature of this transaction because he described it as a "composition." When introducing the Budget of 1909–10 by which he increased the Settlement Estate Duty, he said:
    "The duty must therefore be regarded as a sort of composition for further payments of Estate Duty to which the property would become subject in the absence of the settlement."
    He himself described this as a "composition." Is not a composition, if it is not an actual bargain, in the nature of a bargain? Can a man first compound with his creditors, and afterwards, if he finds it is more to his advantage, annul that bargain and say, "I will return the composition and exact the full amount?" Surely that is contrary to every principle of honesty. I hold the right hon. Gentleman to his own word "composition." I say that he cannot get over that word. He himself has described this duty as a "composition." It has been paid on an understanding with the State to purchase exemption. The consideration was the 2 per cent. and exemption from Estate Duty on any further occasion during the currency of the same settlement wais what was purchased with that 2 per cent. Supposing a local authority made an arrangement with owners of property in a district that they should compound for rates, could the local authority turn back upon that bargain, if they found it to their disadvantage, pay back the amount paid, and say, "We will be no longer bound by it"? This payment really is something in the nature of insurance. The Subject paid 1 per cent. more immediately, and the Government had the advantage of getting it at once. It got the present value, which is an important matter, because in the course of twenty years at compound interest it would double itself. The State immediately on the settlement got the additional 1 per cent., and by that the subject insured himself against payment of further Estate Duty on the falling in of the various life interests under the settlement. When the claim under that policy falls due the right hon. Gentleman says to the subject, "I am going to pay you back your premiums without interest, and I am not going to honour the claim."
    Take the case of the right hon. Gentleman's own insurance tax, which may be regarded as an analogy, because, whatever may be said about it, it is a tax. By virtue of that tax certain benefits have been held out to the insured. Would the right hon. Gentleman be justified, when a man fell ill, and the time came for him to get his

    1789
    sick pay, to say, "I am not going to pay you your sick pay, but I will give you back your fourpences without interest"? That is the analogy. Take the case of club subscriptions. You might compound—the word the right hon. Gentleman used was "composition"—for your future subscriptions to a club and make one payment down at once in order that you might not have to make any further payments. Could the club come subsequently and say, "I think it would suit us more to get more out of you, and therefore we will pay you back what you have paid without a halfpenny of interest, and charge you the same as any other member"? If a club did that, the member would be entitled to take the matter into the Courts and say von haec in fœdera veni. The subject, too, if the State acted in such a manner, could say it was dishonourable and dishonest. I am confident that when the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is drawn to how he has described it, he will not persist in an action which would be so discreditable to the State. I am not sure that the Committee have realised the iniquity—I cannot describe it otherwise—of the proposal. Even after he has announced that he is going back upon that arrangement, he is not going to pay back at once on the passing of the Act the composition which the taxpayer has paid, but he is going to pay that composition on the death of the first tenant for life, which may be twenty or thirty years hence. He is therefore, even now he has repudiated the bargain, going to keep the taxpayers' money for another twenty years. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that in the course of twenty or it may be thirty years the capital may double or treble itself, and the 2 per cent. may represent 6 per cent. by that time.
    Suppose the right hon. Gentleman went so far as even to repay the money with compound interest, he could not really cure this ripping up of transactions, because he would pay the interest to the wrong person. Who is the person who has suffered the loss? It is the tenant for life who has received less interest, because 2 per cent. or 1 per cent. has been taken from the capital value of the property. There has recently been a case in which annuitants have actually had their annuities reduced under certain circumstances because of the Settlement Estate Duty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay interest, because that will at least be something, though he will
    1790
    pay it to the wrong person. The tenant for life will suffer the loss of interest, and his successor will be paid compound interest. The right hon. Gentleman cannot really completely cure it. It will, I quite agree, be some measure of relief, because, after all, the whole settlement hangs together, and somebody under the settlement will get it, but it is only an illustration showing how monstrous it is—I cannot describe it otherwise—for the the State to try and rip up transactions for value, described by the right hon. Gentleman as a "composition." On the last occasion when this matter was under discussion the right hon. Gentleman said that every subject was exposed to the risk of any duty being increased. I quite agree, but I say that no subject ought to be exposed to the risk, when he has made a payment in consideration of receiving an exemption, of the State going back upon that arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman gave us the case of the repeal of the Corn Laws, and he said that persons might have laid out their lands on the assumption that the Corn Laws would not be repealed. That is not an analogous case at all. Every body runs the risk of taxation being in creased, or of new taxation being imposed. If the State had gone to the farmers and said, "If you will now pay us 1 per cent. on your rent, we will not repeal the Corn Laws for ten years," and if, after having done that, and having taken the 1 per cent., they had nevertheless repealed the duty within that period, that would have been an analogous case. The State here has taken the payment, and that very fact, and the fact that they are going to repay it, is an indication that it is not merely an ordinary case of duties being raised or of new duties being imposed upon new articles.
    There is one Clause in the Bill itself which shows that this is not a case of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the case of purchasers of mortgages. He has provided, in the case of purchasers, that they should pay no additional duty. If this were merely an ordinary case of raising the duty, why should that provision be in the Bill? Is a tenant for life under a settlement so much more meritorious because he sells his interest than another who keeps it? Is there such a virtue in being so lavish with your patrimony that you cannot keep it yourself, and have to sell it at any price, that you should be in a better position, so far as taxation is concerned, than another

    1791
    person who is not so lavish? That Clause is really put in because this is not an ordinary case of increasing the duty. It is going back upon a composition and an arrangement that ought to be honoured and kept by the State. The Inland Revenue Commissioners actually give certificates in these cases that no more Estate Duty is payable in respect of that settlement. The case you have to deal with is this: Duty originally introduced upon a memorandum that in consideration of the payment of the duty the settlement should be exempt, a certificate given by the Commissioners that it is exempt, and the right hon. Gentleman coming down to this House and saying that he will withdraw that exemption by payment, possibly twenty or thirty years hence, of the sum paid twenty years ago, without any interest for the use of the money in the meantime, or, if he pays interest, paying it to some person other than the person who loses. The whole business and commerce of this country depends upon credit and good faith. The State itself enforces obligations and contracts through the Courts, and it rests upon the State, in the first instance, to show a good example, and be scrupulously honourable and fair in observing arrangements which the taxpayer has every legitimate and proper reason to suppose will be observed and carried out. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot raise his revenue by any more legitimate means than this, he will have confessed the bankruptcy of the financial system for which he is responsible, and I ask him, in his own interests, not to place on the Statute Book so unjust and so inequitable a tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will deal at once with the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if there is any further need for a Member of the Government to take part in the Debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will, later on, speak on behalf of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, as usual, put forward a plethora of superlatives, which he uses on every conceivable occasion and on every Amendment, great or small. They are of the less force, because they are so absolutely indiscriminate, and there is a certain monotony about them which does not make them in the slightest effective, even when they are repeated for about the fiftieth time.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: You do not like them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, I do not mind them if the hon. Gentleman thinks fit to repeat them. I propose, first of all, to deal with the question of the imposition of a duty of this kind upon settled estates, without any reference to the contract point. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman now the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) admitted that there was a good deal to be said in favour of abolishing the distinction between settled property and property not settled. And so there is. It is no use saying in one case that property is settled for life, for in both cases it really is a life property. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are large landed estates in this country which are not settled, and which have passed, as a matter of custom, or habit, or family tradition, without any settlement at all, in the same way as settled estates do. They pass strictly in the same line of succession. I will take Estate "A," which is settled, and Estate "B," which is not settled. They both pass in the same way to the eldest son, and just the same arrangements are made in each case. [A laugh.] Is not that so? The hon. Member seems rather amused at the idea that real property passes from father to son, but it does so in this country.
    Mr. BUTCHER: If a man is owner in fee, he can sell the estate, and spend the money on himself.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will listen to what I am saying. I said that, as a matter of family custom or tradition, there is no difference in the way in which property passes in the cases of both settled and unsettled estates. In both cases it generally passes to the eldest son. I agree there is a difference in respect of the fact that in one case the estates can be disposed of, and I am referring to the ordinary habit in the case of estates of this kind, and I say there is no distinction, as a rule, between the way in which the property is transmitted.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The difference is this. I agree absolutely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, where there is an eldest son, the estates do pass in the same way, but where there are three or four brothers and the youngest brother only

    1793
    has a son, where an estate is not settled, the owner can pass it direct to the younger generation, whereas, in the case where it is settled, he has no such power.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course, he can pass over the eldest son if he likes, but I am taking the practice and custom, and I still say that, whether these great properties are settled or not, you will find that they are transmitted in practically the same line of succession. It is done, whether there is a document to say it shall be or not. If an estate is settled under the Act of 1894 the owner is let off Estate Duty merely on payment of the fee of 2 per cent. In the other case the whole Death Duty has to be paid at each death. On the merits, is there any reason why we should allow a man, simply by the preparation of a document transmitting property in his family in exactly the same line, to deprive the State of money which it requires for public purposes and for the good of the community? It is unfair to the owner of the unsettled property. Let me take the case of the small yeoman. He does not settle his property. Say he has a farm of about 100 acres. He has no marriage settlement. The farm usually passes to the eldest son, and when the son comes into occupation of the property he has to pay the full Estate Duties. But a great landed proprietor whose estate is in settlement is not compelled to pay the full Death Duty, because he has paid the fee. It is not fair between the two owners of realty.
    I now come to the question of personalty. The vast bulk of personal property is not settled, and when it passes to members of the family they have to pay the full Death Duties. There is practically the same line of transmission, whether it is settled or not. Take the ordinary settlement—that to the husband and wife for life and afterwards to the issue. After all, it is a simple register of the ordinary habits of disposition of the propertied classes of this country. The person who represents the family gets the bulk of the property in order to keep the family going. Substantially the arrangements are the same, whether there is a settlement or not, and the only difference is that under the Act of 1894, if there is a settlement, the person who inherits the property gets rid of the large share of the Death Duties, whereas, if there is no settlement, he has to pay them in full. There is no justice as between the owners of settled and unsettled property, and, as I have already
    1794
    stated, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester admitted that. He said that if we were making a fresh start there was a good deal to be said for abolishing the distinction between settled and unsettled property. That is my recollection of his words. I do not want to do him an injustice. I stated the same thing in debate in his presence, and he did not challenge it. Suppose you were imposing Death Duties for the first time, would you draw this distinction between settled and unsettled property? Of course you could not do so.
    I come now to the question of contracts. I wanted first to establish the point whether on the merits it is fair to put settled property on the same basis as unsettled property, and I say it is a very serious thing to contend in this House that any class of taxation on property can be fixed by contract for all time. The hon. and learned Member has quoted the case of tariffs. As a matter of fact, the same argument was used against the abolition of tariffs as has been used to-day, namely, that it is a breach of faith. There was this to be said for it: Men had converted pasture land into arable land, had expended huge sums of money on it, and had so adapted the whole machinery of agriculture as to enable them to raise wheat on it. No doubt when the change came it hit both the cultivator and the landowner very severely. There is no doubt about that; for years it was a very severe blow to those who had incurred this heavy expenditure in adapting their agriculture to a tariff set up by the State. All this was altered without very much warning. I am not sure that it was known at the beginning of the Session by Sir Robert Peel's followers that the tariff was going to be swept away by their leader, but at any rate the notice was a very short one. When it happened they said, "We have spent enormous sums of money on the faith of a particular duty imposed by the State. You have swept it away, and we contend that that is a breach of faith."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: There was no contract.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will come to that presently. I am not going to shirk any point. Suppose there was a contract. Suppose the State had said, "For ten years we will impose this duty, in order to enable you to grow corn," or suppose they had done what Ave have done here,

    1795
    and said, "We will do it for a whole generation," does the hon. and learned Member mean to assert that because some thing he calls a contract entered into by one party—
    Captain JESSEL: There was payment for it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will put it as the hon. Gentleman likes. Suppose they had paid a fee, and suppose the State had said, "Because you have paid a fee—a fee, if you like, of £1 an acre—we will keep this going for you in order to enable you to raise corn"—does the hon. Member mean to say that, if the interests of the State demanded there should be a change in its fiscal system, and if the necessary arrangements were made for the return of the cash which had been paid—and that is another point which I will deal with presently—does the hon. and learned Member mean to say that he is entitled to claim that such a contract, entered into by a previous Parliament, shall be binding for all time, whatever may be the interests of the community? It is at death the exemption takes place, whatever the period may be.
    Mr. HILLS: It is not for all time.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very difficult for me to continue my arguments with all these interruptions. There has been a good deal of violent language directed personally against me.
    Mr. CASSEL: Not personally.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only want to develop my case. Does he mean to say that you can under these conditions, by the payment of a fee, if you like, to the State, set up a fiscal system which is unfair to other members of the community? My suggestion is that it is unfair to the owners of unsettled property that you should maintain this distinction. Does he say you can maintain a distinction which is unfair to other taxpayers merely because a generation ago a fee was paid of one or two pounds, as the case may be. That is a proposition which is a very serious one for any Parliament to accept. I will now give him a case—not my own case. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about; the credit and the honour of this country. I will give him the name of a statesman who I am sure he will say maintained the credit of this country beyond the shadow of any question—Mr.
    1796
    Pitt. What did Mr. Pitt do? Money had been borrowed by the State on ah expressed contract. [A laugh.] I am sure the hon. Gentleman has no notion of what I am going to say, yet he is laughing in advance. It was an expressed contract that no rates or taxes should be paid upon the interest on that money. Mr. Pitt introduced the Income Tax Act. He swept aside the whole of that arrangement by contract and he imposed the Income Tax upon the interest which the State had guaranteed should be free from taxation.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: It was a war tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, what difference does it make whether it is a war tax? [An HON. MEMBER: "All the difference in the world!"] Does the hon. Member mean to say that if this were a war tax the question of a breach of contract would not have arisen? Is that his argument? You may raise money for war on settled property and it is not a breach of contract, but for public health, for education—HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Is war the only great public necessity? Is not the public health just as important or, to put it at the very least, is it not just as important to keep men alive as to kill them? The hon. Member said it would be perfectly legitimate to break contracts and to be guilty of a breach of faith if you were raising money for the purposes of a war, but it is not legitimate for any other public purpose. I think the Noble Lord has given away the whole case. I think even my hon. Friends behind me who do not see quite eye to eye with me will admit that if that is true their case would disappear.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to misrepresent me. I should like to point out that when money is to be raised in an emergency you have to take steps you would not do in peace time.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That means that we are entitled to break contracts, to be guilty of dishonourable and dishonest action and to raise money by dishonourable means for the purposes of war; but that you cannot do it for the objects upon which we are spending the money. I am quite willing to leave that to the Committee, and I think the Committee has already judged it. I am quite sure the hon. and

    1797
    learned Gentleman is much too shrewd a man to base his case upon that distinction. It is the old argument that the end justifies the means. Let me come back again to the point with which I was dealing when the Noble Lord interrupted me—the question of Income Tax. Mr. Pitt, in spite of that contract, imposed the same Income Tax in respect of the money which had been lent to the State on that condition. That was a written contract—I repudiate the idea that this is a written contract—which the State gave to each holder of these bonds. He imposed it. Why? There were men like the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought the same charges against Mr. Pitt. One distinguished Member of the House said:—
    "No condition whatever ought, in my opinion, to induce this House of Commons to countenance any paltry evasion by which the solemn faith pledged to the public creditors can to the smallest extent be violated.'
    That is almost the same language, short of the adjectives. In substance it is the same charge—violation of public faith, and nothing ought to induce statesmen to do it! He did not call Mr. Pitt names. That is the only difference. Mr. Pitt defended his action on the ground that
    "There can be no question of a breach of good faith with a public creditor by thus imposing upon him what every other subject in the Realm is to incur."
    That is exactly what we are doing now. We are not picking out these men who have what the hon. and learned Gentleman called a contract, and leaving the others without any charge, we are doing exactly what Mr. Pitt did, we are putting every subject of the Realm on exactly the same footing. That is all we are doing, and Mr. Pitt's authority, in spite of the hon. and learned Gentleman's superlatives, is quite good enough for me when I come to a question either of public faith or of finance. Let me take another case. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know, in regard to the owners of settled property, that when the Succession Duty was imposed for the first time by Mr. Gladstone, exactly the same charge was brought against him? He said that the owner of settled property had paid a stamp duty to the State upon the settlement, and had paid it upon the faith of the State. He did not use the word "guarantee," but he said that he did pay it upon the basis of an implication that if he did so the State would respect that settlement, and he also said that now we are altering all that and we are tearing the settlements to pieces. It was said that if they had known it they would never
    1798
    have settled the property in that way. It may have been true. But that is true of every duty you impose. If you put a shilling Export Duty on coal there are certainly collieries in this country which would be extraordinarily hit by it. The capitalist might say, "Had I known that an Export Duty was to be put upon coal, which has made property that otherwise would be a paying one a property which does not pay, I would not have invested in it." That is not an argument upon which to base a charge of breach of faith. The State must be free to adjust its taxes from generation to generation, according to the needs and demands of the community. If at any time the State picks out any particular class in order to impose a tax upon it and is to be open to a charge of breach of faith, what would happen would be this: One Parliament could practically guarantee that a certain class should never be taxed, by making arrangements for the payment of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent for a generation, which would be a guarantee that that class could never be touched in future. That is an impossible position for Parliament to accept. Parliament does not enter into a contract with the subject, whatever its fiscal arrangements are, that it will not alter those duties if the need arises.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman may contend that when you come to the alterations there is a consideration due from the community to the persons in respect of that fee. That is the third point to which I am coming. But to say that we are to be bound by some contract, and that when Budgets are put on the Statute Book that it is henceforth a contract that they should not be altered to the detriment of the people who are taxed, is a principle which would go to the very root of democratic government in this country. It would interfere more with the rights and privileges of the House of Commons than, any doctrine of which the hon. and learned Gentleman can conceive. Let me come to his third point. He says that they have paid 1 per cent., and since 1909 2 per cent., in order to frank or, as he puts it, to insure the property against the Death Duties in certain contingencies. I will accept that. That has paid their premium. Up to the present the premium has covered the risk. No one can challenge that. What are you entitled to give back if the State comes to the conclusion that settled property ought to be put on the same basis as any other property in the matter

    1799
    of Death Duties? The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that so far as the past is concerned the risk has materialised. If he will take the premiums which have been paid since 1894 the risk has gone, or at least one-half of the risk has gone, for lives have fallen in without any payment of the duty. In those cases they would not be entitled to the return of the whole of the 1 or 2 per cent., as the case may be. A life has already fallen in and the Death Duties have not been charged, so the premium has materialised in respect to that life. Our view was that if we returned the whole of the premium it would do substantial justice. In the case of an insurance contract you would not return the whole of the premium, because the people have already had the benefit of, at any rate, 50 per cent. of it. But we propose to go beyond that. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "At least you ought to pay interest." I think he said compound interest. I do not agree with him. Compound interest is a device which I do not think the State ought to encourage in an Act of Parliament in these days.
    What is our view? That up to the present the insurance has covered the risk. What I mean is that if any death has occurred before the particular date mentioned in this Bill, the 2 per cent. would have covered that particular death. From the moment this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament that 2 per cent. ceases to cover the risk. In that case the State could do one of two things. It could at the present moment return the whole of the money, or a certain proportion of the money. I do not think they are entitled to the whole, because many of them have already had half of the value out of it, and some of them very much more than half. They would be entitled, at any rate, to a portion of the money at the present moment. The other way is to return the money by way of deduction from the Death Duties the next time with interest. That is the proposal which we are now making. We shall treat the 2 per cent. and 1 per cent. as an insurance which has covered the risk up to the present. The moment this becomes an Act of Parliament it ceases to cover the risk. Therefore, we either return the cash now or return it on the occasion of death with interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "From when?"] I think from May, the date of the Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is that an alternative proposal?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. The proposal I am making is to deduct the amount. It is simply grafted on to the proposal of the Bill. The proposal of the Bill is that you should deduct the 2 per cent. or the 1 per cent. as the case may be. We propose to add to that interest from the date when the insurance comes to an end, which means May this year—simple interest.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Why do you say that the premium as from now ceases to cover the risk?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If there were a death before May, no Death Duty would be payable in respect of that settled property, so the 2 per cent. would materialise in that case.
    Sir LUKE WHITE: I think my right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. At present if a testator dies and leaves property, say, to a son for life, and then to the son's children, the estate pays the Estate Duty on the whole estate, and because a life intervenes then he has, in addition to paying the Estate Duty, to pay Settlement Estate Duty. But he pays the whole of the Estate Dnty.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am under no misapprehension. I did not think it was necessary to explain that. I assumed that everybody knew it. We make no alteration in that respect. The only alteration is that in the intervening case Death Duties will be paid. I fully realise that in the first case Death Duties are paid plus the 2 per cent. That is the whole point of it, and in future we propose that Death Duties shall be paid on the occasion of every death. The difference in the case of settled estate will be that the 2 per cent. will be returned, and I propose that in addition to that, interest shall be paid from the moment this money ceases to cover the risk. I come to the other point of the hon and learned Gentleman. He says that if you paid interest under this proposal it would go to the wrong person. He will be very surprised to find that I agree with him. I hope he will not be distressed. The loss of interest is not a loss only on the settled property but for the life tenant.
    Mr. CASSEL: Or annuitant.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is another point.
    Mr. CASSEL: A very important point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, but in the main it is a question of the life tenant. I will not quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I agree that the interest is not interest which ought to go to the settled property. I am taking for the first time the simple case of the life tenant. It is the life tenant who loses the use of the money, and therefore on death interest ought to go, in our judgment, to the estate of the life tenant. The 2 per cent. was deducted out of the settled property, and therefore ought to go to the settled property. The interest is on a totally different footing. If the hon. Gentleman were to move his Amendment in that form I should be very pleased to accept it to-night, assuming this is fought and we come to a conclusion upon it, otherwise I shall move it on Report. If anyone likes to move to make it compound interest that is a matter on which the House would adjudicate.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether each tenant for life and each annuitant would get this interest for the period during which they were annuitants or tenants for life?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When that occurs the 2 per cent. is paid and there is an end to the interest.
    Mr. CASSEL: There may be a number of annuitants.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The moment the £2 or £1 is paid the interest ceases to run. One advantage of moving it in Committee rather than on Report is this. If I move it on the Report stage I shall have to move it without one part which I think it is desirable to have in. Take the case of a life tenant who dies with property. That is a very easy matter to deduct, but there might be a life tenant who died without any property except settled property. There is nothing to deduct from in that case. We propose that the money shall be paid over in that case. I cannot propose that on Report. I could propose it in Committee. So if the hon. Member moves it in that form, I can accept it tonight.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman does not expect me to give him an answer at the moment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I only want to make it clear. I am not trying to buy off opposition to this particular Amend-
    1802
    ment. I assume that the Debate will go on. I am assuming that this is concluded, and that the Amendment with regard to it will come on next. I am making that offer. That is the position which the Government take. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Cawley) has put down something which is not quite in this form. He proposes repayment of the tax at the present moment. That would involve raising £10,000,000 in order to distribute the money at present. We think it very much better that the deduction should be made as the estates fall in, with simple interest at 3 per cent. We propose that as an alternative. I regret that I cannot go quite to the extent my hon. Friend proposes, but we are really going a long way towards meeting his views. We have really striven to try and make this change with as little hardship as we possibly can. Every new tax is a hardship. Taxes on property are regarded as hardships by the owners. We have done our very best to meet the various objections which have been raised in the course of the Debate by Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that hon. Members, however great their dissatisfaction may be, will agree that on the whole we have done our best to deal with the position.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech should, of all men, talk of adjectives and superlatives. I think that was surprising coming from him, for if he does not know how to use them, I do not know anyone in the House of Commons who does. But I got the explanation at the end of his speech. I could not at first understand his irritation with my hon. and learned Friend, but when I saw the pathetic way in which the right, hon. Gentleman turned to those on whose votes he relies, and who, he fears, are against him on this occasion, I began to understand that his indignation with my hon. and learned Friend was because he felt that it was not quite safe to direct it to his Friends behind him. I am lost in admiration at the length of time which the right hon. Gentleman has taken to say what he had to say to-night. It is really wonderful that he should take something like twenty minutes to say what was said by Mr. Larkin in five words. I am not sure that it would be Parliamentary to quote the words. He said, "To hell with contracts!" [An HON. MEMBER: "Four words!"] The right hon. Gentleman has taken twenty minutes to express what was

    1803
    expressed in that way in four words. The right hon. Gentleman really never touched at all the whole point on which serious objection is made to this proposal. He began by saying that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) had said that he could not say he was opposed to this particular tax. I have not looked up what my right hon. Friend said, but what I think he said is exactly what I have said. Apart altogether from the merits of the case, which is an arguable proposition for which something might be said on both sides, what the Government are doing is something which in ordinary business life, or the ordinary relations between two honourable men, would not be considered fair or honourable. That is the whole thing. How does he meet it?
    I will take the first justification he gave in his reference to the example of Pitt. There is one thing I have learned from my long experience of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that, though I do not pretend for a moment that he deliberately misrepresents facts, you cannot accept any fact from him without examination and analysis. I do not know exactly what this illustration is, but the difference between it and what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is, on the face of it, probable, and it makes a very great difference. If the right hon. Gentleman assumes that Pitt raised that loan and made it a condition that it was to bear no taxation—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated dissent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It does not matter. Suppose the position was that when the loan was raised the Minister said it would bear no taxation, what he meant was that it would bear no excess on the taxation to which other loans were liable at the time. It was to impose an entirely new tax, and certainly a great deal can be said in favour of an obligation not to impose future taxation. What is the real defence of the right hon. Gentleman? He says it is exactly the same as the obligation which the State comes under to individuals carrying on business under a tariff. The frame of mind of a man who can take that view seems to me to be absolutely incomprehensible. There is no resemblance—not the least in the world—between the two cases. Tariff or no tariff is a question of general taxation. This arrangement is a bargain, and as we
    1804
    hold a contract, with an individual person, and has no bearing whatever on the general taxation applied to the whole country. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman a case which seems to me to be exactly analogous, and which has some relation to a tariff, though not exactly. Suppose, as happens in new countries, the Government of a country attracts capital by saying, "We will give you State land on which to erect buildings, and for fifty years, or whatever the time may be, we will allow you to have that land without paying any rent for it, but at the end of fifty years you will have to pay rent." A man goes to the country and starts business on these terms. Another generation comes, and says: "It is monstrous that one generation can bind another. We entirely repudiate the idea that this man, who is making millions, should go on owning this land and paying no rent. We insist on his paying rent." I say these two cases are exactly parallel. The question is: is there or is there not a contract? I think there is. It is not a legal contract, of course, for this simple reason, in my judgment, that Parliament can do anything it pleases. It can break up contracts. It can take money from me and give it to the right hon. Gentleman, or anybody else, and but for that this would be an absolutely binding contract on the State. Really the position is borne out by the illustration given by my hon. and learned Friend. The illustration he gave was that of a club. We all know that when a new club, say a golf club, is founded, they are anxious to get members and to get money, and they make arrangements with new people that if they will come in before a certain date they will only have to pay a certain amount. It is a bargain made with those who come in. Afterwards the club becomes prosperous and other people have to pay a higher rate, and they say, "We will not adhere to that," but in that case the contract which has been made is legal. The sole difference in this case is that Parliament, being above them, has taken a course which would not be taken by any honourable business man.
    I quite admit that the interests of the State might make it necessary, but the State should look very closely at any bargain of that kind. If it was to be a bargain, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for all time, I do not think the State even then would be justified in doing anything which is not upright. But there would be the

    1805
    great difference that it would be a kind of bargain which the State had no right to make for all time, and something could be said for that view. But this is nothing of the kind. The time is limited. A settlement can only apply, as I understand, to one unborn generation. That is a strictly limited time, and surely the need of money is not so great that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot find some other means of raising that money than by breaking a bargain which was absolutely understood by one party. They paid their money on that understanding, and they based their whole livelihood upon the words used by the right hon. Gentleman in 1909, when he said that he looked upon it as a bargain and as something which was being done which would free that estate from obligation under which other estates were. I do not think there is any justification for what is now being done. In my view the right hon. Gentleman showed in the suggestion which he made, as to what he is willing to offer, that he himself recognises that there was a bargain. I am not going into that offer. It seems to me to add meanness to something worse. The right hon. Gentleman showed himself that it was a bargain when he spoke of it. He said that they had the insurance up to the time that this Act was going to pass. Why? They have paid the insurance up to the day after the Act was passed. If it takes place the day before, they have got the insurance. If it takes place the day after, they have not got the insurance. Then what is the meaning of that remark except this, that until we broke that contract everybody believed that he had a binding insurance. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should take this step. There is not enough in it to make it worth while. I can only explain it on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman has an obsession against landowners. I do not own, and as long as we are liable to have Chancellor of the Exchequers like the right hon. Gentleman I am not likely to own, a yard of land, but I do say that there is nothing else which can explain to my mind why be should persist in this. It is clear, I think, to every fair-minded mind, in view of what happened in 1909–10, that this is going against what was understood as a bargain by one party to the contract and admitted as a bargain by the other party at the time.
    Sir FREDERICK LOW: In the course of this Debate a great deal of false
    1806
    analogy has been used concerning the matters which we are discussing. What is it that we are endeavouring to do under this Clause? It is to make persons in the future taking an interest under settlements pay Death Duties. Why should not they? It is said that they themselves should not because they have made a contract, and have paid money as part of the consideration. The first person who would have to pay duty under this Clause would be the next tenant for life under the settlement. Has that tenant for life paid anything at all? The hon. and learned Member who introduced this Amendment stated candidly that he had not.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. The tenant for life has paid in the reduced interest on his capital.
    Sir F. LOW: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not appreciate my point. I am talking about the tenant for life who is coming in on the next failure by death. He is the person who will have to pay the next duty. The tenant for life at present in the enjoyment of the estate has paid in this sense, that he has incurred a loss of income in the shape of the interest on the 2 per cent. which the Government have received, but the tenant for life who will have to pay the duty under this settlement has not paid a shilling. The analogy that has been drawn with regard to membership of clubs, compounding for rates and composition with creditors, is entirely false. The person who is going to pay under this Clause is the person who on the next death will become tenant for life under the settlement. The only person who has hitherto paid anything, and that in the shape of loss of interest, is the person who at the moment now is enjoying that estate, and of course, any tenant for life who has been enjoying that estate, since the provision as to 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., as the case may be, was introduced, has been paying it, but the tenant for life who will have to pay this duty, in my humble opinion, has not paid a shilling, and has not paid any consideration money for any contract, and is in the position of a person who is seeking to get a benefit for money paid by somebody else. That is really the fact, and it is uncontrovertible that the person who is sought to be brought in as a person to pay duty under the provision of this Section is not a person who has paid a shilling in pursuance of any contract, because the 2 per cent., or if it was before 1909, the 1 per cent., which has been paid will be refunded, paid, I

    1807
    suppose, to the trustees of the settlement. It will again form part of the estate, and he will get his income from that. Therefore he loses nothing at all. He is a man who is coming into benefit by the devolution of property. The object of this Clause, as I understand it, is to put persons inheriting settled estate in the same position in future as persons inheriting or acquiring unsettled estate. That is our scheme.
    How is the future tenant for life damaged? He is only damaged, if he is damaged at all, in this sense, that he is losing the benefit of a bargain that is made by somebody else, and the cost of which has been paid by somebody else, and the capita] which that cost represents, which is all that the tenant for life is interested in, is now going to be refunded to the estate. With regard to the question of interest, of course, there, no doubt, is a matter which presents some difficulty, because I appreciate the point which was taken by, I think, the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, who asked to whom are you going to pay back? Clearly the person to whom it should be paid back is the tenant for life, and it is conceivable that some difficulty might arise in cases in which, since the 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. has been paid, there has been a succession. Of course, that does present some difficulty, but these cases, like many others, must be dealt with on more or less broad principles. It is impossible, or may be impossible, to refund small sums to a number of representatives of successive tenants for life. This presents great difficulty. Therefore, I do submit that the Government, in cases where there has been a number of successive tenants for life, which are comparatively few, is adopting a not unfair way of dealing with the matter. It seems to me that the proposition which is now made, that the interest as from the date of the cessation of the insurance should be paid to the tenant for life, is the proper scheme. The premium itself, which has covered a very substantial risk up to the present moment, is refunded to the capital of the estate, and for the future, persons inheriting settled property will, it seems to me, very properly come under the same burden as persons who inherit or acquire unsettled property.
    How it can be said with any show of justice, or with any show of consistency, that there is any contract at all with the
    1808
    future tenant for life, really is outside my comprehension. I agree that there has been a contract, but this has been met in the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, and I submit to the Committee that the House, in the exercise of its undoubted power, is entitled to vary a transaction of this sort, provided that it acts in the matter with reasonable equity and fairness. I think that is what it is doing. It is providing for refunding to the persons who have been deprived, either by way of capital or by way of income, of the 1 per cent. or the 2 per cent., and it is enacting that for the future there shall be no preferential treatment in these matters. That is a point that we upon this side of the House, or, at all events, a great many of us, have very strong feelings. We consider that it is not right that merely because property is put into settlement that therefore it should escape the burdens which fall upon many poor persons who, from their circumstances or other reasons, are not in so good a position. For the future settled property and unsettled property should, having regard to fiscal burdens, be on an equality. I submit to the Committee that the House of Commons is perfectly entitled to make this provision, and that the argument that has been put before it, based on notions of contract and on analogies which have no real application to such a transaction as this, are not arguments that this House of Commons can take into its consideration, and I shall certainly vote for this Clause.
    Captain JESSEL: I am not going to follow the hon. and learned Member through the whole merits of the case whether settled property should or should not pay. I shall simply confine myself to the Amendment before the House. The hon. and learned Member no doubt reprepresented the views of many Members on his side of the House, and he sought to make a case out that there should be no difference between settled and unsettled property. That may be. But I should like to remark that I listened very carefully to the previous Debate in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) took part. The right hon. Gentleman did not express any opinion at all upon that point, but what he drew attention to was that if you owed money to the State for duties and taxes you ought to pay interest. He drew attention strongly to that fact; but now, so far as I

    1809
    can understand, the Government have taken this money away and are going to pay hardly any interest at all. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not very fair upon my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be very indignant at the language of the hon. and learned Member. I cannot imagine why, unless it was he had an exceedingly bad case. He made a very lengthy statement, and took a great deal of time to get to the point, and, when he did get to the point, I do not think he at all met it. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the case of Mr. Pitt. So far as I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, the case was pot at all parallel, but even if it were, two blacks do not make one white. If Mr. Pitt did something he ought not to have done, that is no excuse for the Chancellor of the Exchequer perpetrating something entirely unjustifiable.
    It would seem that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion all these cases apply to landed estates; he has debated the matter, and has justified his case, only with reference to landed estates. At very considerable length he described the difference between a landed estate which was not settled and a landed estate that was settled. He told us about the eldest son succeeding in the ordinary course in both cases. But that is not altogether true; because sometimes the eldest son does not behave as he ought, and finds himself cut off with the proverbial shilling. Anyone acquainted with the legal aspects of this subject must know that it does not entirely apply to landed estates. There are many other cases in which property is settled. A testator may not trust his own children, and, having brothers or sisters, he provides that his estate shall not be dealt with for a considerable period. Therefore it is not a matter affecting only landed estates. There is one point to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee. A testator may make provision which, poor deluded man, he thinks will be respected, and he leaves his estate in a particular way. Take, for example, the case of a man who has two brothers: He has no children of his own, but he has a nephew; he wishes to do the right thing by his brothers, and he leaves each of them a livelihood in the estate, the money to go, in course of time, to the eldest of the nephews, the first of the litter," as the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed it.
    1810
    The testator has done that, believing in the Parliamentary bargain—I do not call it by the sacred name of contract—under Sir William Harcourt's Budget of 1894, and further amended by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the "People's Budget" of 1909, and this is rather hard on the testator, and no doubt if he had thought that for one moment that the thing would be altered, he would have left his property in a different way. He would have given his brothers a lump sum and made an entirely different disposition. I do not think that case has been dealt with. It must be remembered in this connection that the brothers have only got a life interest and are not therefore free to deal with the estate as if they had the full disposal of the property. That is an exceedingly important consideration. Those people are being severely handicapped in the matter. In the case of a settled estate you cannot dispose of a certain amount of the property so as to lessen the burden of Death Duties when the estate passes. Everything that is left is tied up in settlement and has to pay the full Estate Duty. That is a point that has not been considered. An ordinary person who has got an unsettled estate, if he thinks the State is going to press too hardly by the burden of Death Duties, can within the prescribed time, quite legitimately, hand over portion of it. That period is three years now, and by doing that pro tanto reduces the Death Duties on the estate.
    I do not think those points have been fully met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If this Amendment or something of the sort is not carried, you will create a great deal of unsettlement and distrust in the minds of everybody. I am not arguing the question of whether you should or not treat settled and unsettled estates in a different manner, but I do think you ought to have made a sort of bargain. The Chancellor used the word "composition" in the Act of 1909, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Pancras doubted if he could get over that word. The Chancellor in his speech very judiciously avoided it, and got round it in the way he always does—on a side issue. He referred to what some hon. Members would have done in the case of a war, and said if you could do it for the killing of men why could you not adopt a certain course to preserve people's lives and better administration. That is, if I

    1811
    may respectfully say so, entirely beside the point, and the Chancellor did not really touch the whole question of the reversal of the contract. I hope the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. Harcourt), the son of a distinguished Chancellor, will agree with the principles laid down on that very important occasion by his father.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: To a certain extent I agree with the hon. Member.
    9.0 P.M.
    Captain JESSEL: I am very glad that the hon. Member who, of course, has read the subject in which his eminent father played such a distinguished part, agrees with me that settlements more or less of this kind should not lightly be abolished. I would like to know how much is going to be gained by this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that settled estates were expected to run for a generation, which is thirty years. Nineteen years have passed and what money is to be gained out of this? Is it really worth while to do what I may call a small and shabby trick of this kind for so little money for the revenue. I should like to have an estimate of the amount, as at present it is mixed up in the general view of what the Settlement Duty is going to bring in. I am not at all clear as to the nature of the concession mentioned. As I understand, until the Resolution of the House the 2 per cent. is not to have any interest, but that the estate is to be regarded as having been franked up to that time and to be insured up to the date when the Resolution was brought in, and there fore no interest is to be paid on that. After that 3 per cent. simple interest is going to be paid. I understood the Chancellor to say that, but hon. Members opposite had the advantage that he turned to them, and we could not hear him on this side. Who is that money to be paid to—is it to the existing tenant for life or to his executors?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: May I interrupt the hon. Member simply in order that he may be acquainted with the proposal. The proposal is when the next period arrives at which Estate Duty is payable when the rebate of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. is made under the Bill, then there shall also be allowed interest on the 1 or 2 per cent to the tenant for life whose death has caused the Estate Duty to be paid—that is, of course, to his representatives.
    Captain JESSEL: His executors.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Yes, that is right.
    Mr. CASSEL: In the case of annuitants will it be similar?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The annuitant, as the hon. and learned Member knows, is treated under the Statute as being pro tanto the tenant for life. Therefore arrangements would have to be made, so that the words would cover the annuitants as well as the tenants for life. Any death that has already occurred cannot give rise to payment of Estate Duty in the future.
    Captain JESSEL: I am very glad to have elicited that answer which, I think, makes the whole of the case much worse than before. I say so as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the person who is being done, so to speak, is the actual tenant for life. As far as I can make out, he is going to get no benefit at all. It is to be paid over to his representatives when he is dead. When is he going to get any enjoyment from that compensation—up there, or down there, or where? I say that the proposal makes the matter a great deal worse. I am exceedingly sorry, on the broader ground, that the Government should have gone out of their way to perpetrate a mean trick of this kind, which will do a great deal to upset belief in the good faith of British Governments. I really think it is hardly worth their while to perpetrate such a shabby trick as they propose in this case.
    Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) using superlatives in regard to this matter. I think it is a case when superlatives are necessary to express our detestation of the course which the Government have taken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was raising money in the interests of the community. In my opinion in the interests of the community it is a great deal better not to do a shabby or unjust transaction in order to find money. You will do a great deal more harm to the community by doing a dishonourable thing than you will do good by any amount of money that you may raise by such a means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when defending his proposal on the Resolution, said that if he took a certain course he would lose a million pounds in the first

    1813
    year, and £800,000 or £900,000 a year afterwards. I do not know how he arrived at those figures; they are extremely large, and I should like to know on what they are based. But they are no sort of an answer to our contention that it is a breach of contract. Whether it is a question of £1 or of £1,000,000 does not enter into the matter at all. The State can surely afford to be just. We often hear, especially from below the Gangway, that the State ought to be a model employer. Equally, the State ought to set a good example in the matter of business and the sanctity of contracts. If the State does not do so, it will do a great amount of harm to the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that one Government need not carry out contracts made by a preceding Government. He did not say so in so many words, but that is the import of what he said. He also stated that there was an analogy between the abolition of the Corn Duty and the abolition of the Settlement Duty without compensation. In my opinion there is no analogy whatever. There was no contract at all between the landlords and farmers and the State. The landlords and farmers gave no consideration whatever to the State. The present case is utterly different. There has been a consideration paid.
    I wish to put a point to which attention has not yet been called. I do not look upon this Settlement Duty as a tax at all. A tax is something which is imposed upon everybody, and what everybody is bound to pay, but the Settlement Duty did not fall upon everybody. Only those people paid it who chose to accept the terms of the bargain offered them. Therefore it is absolutely distinct from a tax in the ordinary sense of the word. Sir William Harcourt made the offer: "If you come to the Exchequer and offer to pay, ready-money down, 2 per cent. on your estate, we will frank that estate for so many lives." That was a distinct bargain; it was not a tax in any sense of the word; it was a bargain pure and simple for cash down. There is no doubt that many people were induced to settle their estates by that means. In fact, as far as I can see, Sir William Harcourt offered the inducement as an encouragement to people to settle their estates, and also to get ready-money down. Therefore, I think it is a bargain which ought to be kept. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1814
    now proposes to penalise the unfortunate settlor. Of course he is dead now, and cannot be repaid; but I think that the sanctity of contracts on the part of the British Government ought to be considered absolutely binding. In my opinion the Government, instead of setting an example of rectitude, are setting an example more or less of what I should call sharp practice. How that can contribute any advantage to the community I fail to see. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that settled land would benefit through the rates, and he seemed to suggest that therefore the settled lands owner ought not to complain. Of course, if the Bill passes, all land is supposed to gain through the rates, but settled land will gain no more than any other land. Therefore I do not see that it has much to congratulate itself upon there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also put forward an argument as to compensation being given to the settlor of the land. I do not agree. If it is a compensation, it does not alter the case at all. It does not alter the question of the sanctity of contracts.
    Personally, I am in favour of the abolition of the Settlement Duty. That is a point to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted a great deal of his speech. I think that the country will not be in agreement with the Government in doing anything which savours at all of a breach of contract, and that this is breach of contract I think there can be no doubt. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered some kind of concession, I do not think he has offered enough. I think he ought to carry out the contract which has been made and nothing less. The concession, to my mind, which he proposes to make—if I may say so—is rather mean. I do not suppose for a moment that we shall get the Chancellor to alter his intention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if this Settlement Duty were abolished it would cost £10,000,000; so he proposed to hold that £10,000,000 in hand and to pay 3 per cent. simple interest on it. I think that that is rather mean, because, after all, in these times people can make 4 per cent. on their money in trust securities. If, therefore, he does not want to make compensation in that way, he should offer to give 4 per cent. compound interest. I know why he is offering this compromise or compensation, or whatever you like to call it, but whatever he may say or may put

    1815
    forward in defence of his policy, if the protection that has been paid is taken away by this Bill, the money should be refunded. Whatever arguments may be offered for other parts of the scheme, there can be no excuse for keeping money taken for a specified contract if you do not perform that contract. Therefore, I myself think that the money, the 2 per cent. or 1, or whatever it is, ought to be paid back at once, because you are not giving a quid pro quo for it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see his way to get the £10,000,000 required, I think at least he ought to say to the men whose money he has taken, or to the others concerned: "We will pay you 4 per cent., which is the price of trust securities to-day, and we will also pay you compound interest for the use of that money."
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I was very much interested in the speech which has just been delivered. It shows that hon. Members on the other side of the House appreciate the arguments which have been used by my hon. Friend and others in putting forward our case, and that they fully realise that this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be severely attacked as a breach of contract on the part of the Government. What astonished me much more was the speech which we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Norwich (Sir F. Low). I am sorry he has now left the House, but he is one of the very few apologists for the Government who have urged that this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be carried on the ground of broad general principles. I listened with great attention to what he was saying in relation to these apparent broad general principles, and it seemed to amount to this: that because the tenant for life—or the second life tenant, I should say—has succeeded, and has benefited under the settlement, not having made the settlement himself, he was not therefore entitled to gain anything by that settlement. That was the broad, general principle on which the hon. and learned Gentleman argued, and anything more fatuous, I might almost say dishonest, I have never heard. If matters generally were to be treated on such broad general principles, there would be a very extraordinary state of things. If, say, the founder or chief partner in a firm makes a contract with the Government or with anyone else and then dies, and other partners are taken in, is it to
    1816
    be said that the new partners, who have come in since the contract was made, are not to realise any benefit under it? That would be a most startling statement to make, yet it is absolutely parallel with the conduct of the Government.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suggest that it was quite fair to treat settled property and unsettled property on the same footing. I should have thought that it was self-evident that it was not fair to do so. In the first case, that of settled property, there is a life interest with which you are dealing; in the case of unsettled property, the interest is absolute. Indeed, Sir William Harcourt in 1890 made it extremely clear in his Budget speech that that kind of property did deserve separate treatment. Again, I think I can truly say that it has been frequently the practice of solicitors and family lawyers to advocate settlements on the ground that by the payment of Settlement Estate Duty the funds settled were on the first death cleared, once and for all, of estate duty during the life of the settlement. That advice they gave, thoroughly relying on the good faith of the State under which these settlements have been made. I would like to point out that the return of duty paid does not rectify the injustice proposed in regard to existing settlements. The hon. and learned Member for Norwich talked about the future. Whatever view you may take as to future settlements on this charge, it seems to me quite clear that as regards existing settlements we should adhere to the arrangements which have been made. Further, in the case of existing settlements, the parties cannot by a revocation of the deeds be put back into the positions they would have occupied had the settlement not been executed, so even if a power to revoke was given, it would not justify the alteration proposed. The parties cannot put themselves in a new and different position. Nothing can put them back. Therefore it is all the more unjust and all the greater breach of contract on the part of the Government to say, "Oh, we will pay you back the duty you paid us in consideration of this settlement being made, although we will not, in fact, either put you back into the position you were in before you signed those deeds or carry out our own part of the bargain. The whole position seems to me exceedingly unfair. In all these matters, no doubt, Parliament can do as it pleases. Parlia-

    1817
    ment can make things legal which are inequitable, unjust, or immoral. There is nothing to prevent Parliament from doing so, but if it does, Parliament cannot remove the sense of injustice which is created, and cannot prevent the feeling of resentment and wrong which necessarily must be aroused in all the parties concerned. In this matter whatever Parliament may do as regards taxation of this and of a similar kind, it must be borne in mind that it is the taxpayer himself who is largely the practical judge of injustice so far as the public is concerned. And if the taxpayer has this feeling of resentment and dislike and wrong from the State, you will encourage on his part a desire to evade taxes which, under ordinary circumstances, all of us should condemn. I say that quite advisedly, because, although many of us may feel that an evasion of taxes, for instance by way of giving money intra vivos is not for the advantage of the State, nevertheless it is perfectly justifiable if the States comes forward in this fashion and by mean and dishonest behaviour attacks the property of the taxpayer. Under these circumstances, I hope the Government will reconsider their own position and withdraw the Clause.
    Mr. RADFORD: I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that the question we have to decide is not what is the law, but what is right to be laid down. At the moment we are not subjects of the law; we are legislators, devising what the law ought to be. And in regard to that question I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is desirable that there should in future be no distinction between settled property and unsettled property. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on being able to do what I regard as the completion of the work begun by Sir William Harcourt in 1894. Why Sir William Harcourt proposed the Settled Estate Duty I do not know, but I think it is quite likely that it was a concession to the payers of the duty, because his Parliamentary majority at that time, when be proposed Estate Duty, was so small that he had to make any concession he could in order to conciliate opposition. The wonder is not that he made some concession to the owners of real estate and other persons liable to Estate Duty, but that he ever carried Estate Duty through the House at all. I congratulate
    1818
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer on living in happier times and being able to carry out a reform which probably was impossible in the days of Sir William Harcourt, and I approve personally of raising in this manner the deplorably large sum which it is necessary to raise in the present year. It is better, in my opinion, to tax persons who have something than persons who have nothing, and it is better to tax a man about to succeed to property he has not earned than to tax a man without anything and whom you can only tax by intercepting his food before it reaches his month.
    I say frankly I regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not accepted the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras has stated the case with great ability and lucidity, and he relieves me from the necessity of repeating the arguments. Barring some rhetorical vituperative expressions which he used in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would adopt for all practical purposes the arguments he has used. In a few words I would state this, that persons who paid Estate Duty at 1 per cent. under the Act of 1894 and persons who have since paid increased Estate Duty under the Act of 1909–10 have the assurance that during the settlement in respect of which Settlement Estate Duty has been paid no further Estate Duty shall be paid by them. I agree with what has been said that Parliament may do anything it likes. It may rescind any law that has been passed and cancel any privileges granted. What we have to see now is whether it is just and right that that should be done. I think it is not. I do not want to quibble about the question raised whether there is a contract or not. Strictly, there is not. A contract is a bilateral mutual engagement. In this case there are no two parties; but you can incur obligations otherwise than by contract, and the most solemn way is by an act of the Legislature to which the King, Lords and Commons are party, and that is the right that persons who have paid Settlement Estate Duty have acquired. I, for one, should be very loth to take away that right from them.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in some playful and kindly references to me at the close of his speech, has disclosed to an unfeeling Committee the fact that I am a solicitor. I admit that I am a humble

    1819
    member of that melancholy profession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer adorns, and this sad disclosure induces me to make a personal appeal to him, and it is this: I shall be very glad if he will tell me what I am to say to my client who comes and ask me what he shall do when he is the victim of the Clause we are now considering. My client comes to me and says, "A claim has been made upon me for the payment of Estate Duty, and I understand that under the Finance Act of 1894 I am exempt from payment." "Yes," I say, "that is so, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiated the pledge given by Sir William Harcourt and has repealed the Clause of the Act on which you rely." My client will say to me, "No, sir, I am an Englishman. I am not a subject of a Mid-American Republic. Finance Ministers in this country do not repudiate their obligations." Well, I say all I can for my Chancellor and my party, and I say, "It is not wholly repudiated, because under the Act of 1914 the Chancellor of the Exchequer will refund Settlement Estate Duty with interest from the 11th May this year." Then I explain to him how a payment is made and how it is likely under this provision some of it will be refunded. But my client will say, "Then it is a partial repudiation. I expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this great country to pay 20s. in the £ as I do." I confess I have not a word to say to my client, and I should be deeply grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tell me what I should say to him.
    There are some 20,000 solicitors in this country. Some of them have not got much practice, but all of them have some clients though it may be but a bad sheep in the wilderness, and that kind of conversation will go on in every solicitor's office in this country. Why is it desirable or necessary to incur the hostility of the whole legal profession? If this were some great policy of land reform, or if it involved great national interests, I would encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defy the legal profession and defeat them, but as one of his humble supporters it occurs to me we are dealing with transactions where it seems to be superlative folly to incur the opposition of a widespread and critical profession in an attempt to raise a little money by questionable means. I do not want to weary the Committee. The argument has already been exhausted.
    1820
    But I should like to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his very spirited and brilliant reply, used several arguments. He has given the analogy of the Corn Laws and an analogy relating to insurance, and another analogy relating to something else which I forget. But I should like to call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the dictum of a very distinguished and learned judge, who said, "Every analogy presents either a truism or a misrepresentation." The analogies cited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not suggest truism, and therefore I think we must select the other alternative. The right hon. Gentleman very unkindly said of me that I preferred the text of a strict settlement to that of holy writ. I disclaim that, and I assure hon. Members that there is no foundation for the suggestion. But since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the subject of holy writ, let me commend to him the passage in the Psalms, which commends "The good man who sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." It may be expected that after what I have said I should follow the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras into the Division Lobby, but I am sorry to say I cannot do so. I do not mean to withhold my support from the Government, although I think the finance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in no way satisfactory. Not that I think the concessions offered are adequate, but that I will not refuse my vote to a Government that carries the cargo of Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, and Plural Voting.
    Mr. CAVE: I think you, Mr. Chairman, must be placed in some difficulty in selecting speakers in this Debate, because whenever you have called on an hon. Member on the back benches, in the natural expectation that he will support the Clause and speak against the Amendment, you and the House are disappointed by hearing some very severe blows against the Bill itself. The hon. Member who has just spoken is no exception to that rule, but most of us were rather surprised that after a speech in which he attacked this Clause hip and thigh, and used powerful arguments in favour of the Amendment, he has not the courage to go into the Lobby in support of his views. The lame reason he gave for that course will persuade all of us that he must lie under the imputation that his failing courage has prevented him from supporting his views in

    1821
    the Division Lobby. With regard to the Clause itself, I do not wish to dwell on the general question at any length, but I want to say that I think the whole Clause is a mistake, and that the principle of the Settlement Estate Duty is the right one. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that Sir William Harcourt adopted the principle of the Settlement Estate Duty because he was forced into it by way of a concession, because he said plainly that it was a fair thing to do. The whole purpose and object of the Estate Duty is to acquire for the State some portion of the property which passes on death, and usually on death the corpus of the property itself passes to the successor, and you take a portion of what he gets. But when a tenant for life dies, the property does not pass. All that happens is that the person who has enjoyed the property for his life dies, and the life interest ceases. That property has really passed once for all on the death of the original testator or settlor, and therefore it is not true to say that that property in fact passes at death. If you take full Estate Duty in the case of death on settled property you will be exacting much more than you do in the ordinary case of death. The fact is that it is a great mistake to discourage settlements as you are now proceeding to do. They are not all settlements of land, and even in settlements of land they do not now prevent a sale of the property. Many of the settlements made are settlements of money, and those are the most useful of all settlements. I have known, and the Solicitor-General must have known, very many cases where the existence of a money settlement has saved a whole family from destitution. If the money is left unsettled, the first donee is allowed to spend the whole of it. If you give a life estate to your son, and provide that on his death the property goes to his children, you prevent him spending the whole amount, and you provide something for his widow and children. I think great harm will be done if settlements of this kind are discouraged by such a Clause as this.
    May I repeat the question as to what is the amount involved in this Amendment. I want to know how much is involved, and what is the loss to the State by the acceptance of this Amendment, because that might have some effect upon the mind of the Committee. I do not think it can mean a large sum even in the first year, but plainly it will be a diminishing sum from year to year. It
    1822
    is not a question as the Chancellor said of franking one particular class. It is not a fact that the Settlement Estate Duty franks a class, and that you are now going to throw a burden on that class. It is not a question of a class, but of keeping your bargain with individuals, and the whole argument of my hon. and learned Friend rested upon that point. I agree that it is not a case of a contract in the sense that one side offers terms and the other side accepts them. It is not a contract in the ordinary sense; but you put into an Act of Parliament in 1894 a provision that if an additional sum of money were paid on a death, then the settlement made on that death should be freed from Estate Duty so long as the settlement ran. That is, in my opinion, a Parliamentary bargain.
    Parliament told the taxpayer that he should pay a certain sum and should be free from further Estate Duty for a certain period, or a period easily ascertainable. On the faith of that offer, money was paid not as a yearly premium but as one payment paid once for all, so that the insurer paid his premium then, and bought his exemption for the whole period. On the faith of this arrangement settlements were made. Settlors, of course, were told by their advisers that if they made a settlement, Estate Duty would not have to be paid on every death, but that the duty would be paid once and for all. On the faith of that enactment and of that advice, they have made settlements. More than that, the hon. Member probably knows, and many of his profession know, that settlements were made, in view of this enactment for longer periods, and for more lives than they otherwise would have been made, so that people acted on this Parliamentary offer, and by so acting accepted the offer, and made what in effect and equity is a contract. When the Settlement Estate Duty is paid the authorities give a certificate that the settlement is for the future exempt, or free from Estate Duty. How are you going to deal with those certificates? Are you going to recall them? You have no right to do so. They remain in the possession of the holders of the settlements as the representation of the State that the property is free from Estate Duty. There surely is something which does amount to all intents and purposes to a contract. You have got the money, the certificate of exemption has been given, and it cannot be denied, if you now throw Estate Duty

    1823
    upon those settled properties, that you are committing a breach of your plain written obligation contained in the certificate that the estate is free. I do not think it is possible to get over that fact, or to persuade any man who understands these things that you can pass this Clause in its present form, and without the Amendment, without committing a plain breach of faith towards the taxpayer.
    Let me deal with one or two of the arguments which have been advanced on that side of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put the case of farmers having paid a certain percentage on their estates on the understanding that the Corn Laws would be imposed for a certain number of years. He said that was a contract which no Parliament could make so as to bind its successors. I am not sure of that. I am disposed to think, that if such a bargain were made, it would have to be kept, and would under ordinary conditions be kept in this country, but this is not quite the same thing. It is not a representation that for certain considerations a duty will be imposed upon other people for all time to come. It is a representation that for a consideration a tax will not be imposed upon the person who pays the money and those whom he represents for a limited time. It seems to me a very different bargain altogether, and one which does not come within the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. Then it is said that Mr. Pitt made a similar bargain and did not keep it. I am not familiar with the case cited, but, if it is properly cited, I do not think that in our day we should take the same course as Mr. Pitt is said to have taken. I know of cases where under Acts of Parliament land was conveyed or vested free of all rates and taxes, and where until to-day that land is free of rates and taxes, to the great loss of the Exchequer and of the local authorities. I know of a bargain stronger than that put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which to-day is kept, and which I suppose for all time will be kept, rather than that the State should repudiate it.
    The case of the Stamp Duty was put. It was said that in 1853 people argued that because settlements had paid Stamp Duty they must be free from Succession Duty. I do not think the case is the same at all. There was no provision in the Stamp Acts that Stamp Duty should be paid and no Succession Duty should be levied, and therefore the case is quite different. The
    1824
    answer there may probably have been a good one, but here the argument may be entirely fallacious. I do not think any case has been put where provision in an Act of Parliament that a certain sum should be paid and that on the payment of that sum exemption should be given has been broken by a subsequent Bill. Really no defence has been put forward for this provision. The hon. Gentleman who spoke just now seemed to think that it was the solicitors who would have cause to complain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here at the time when he was appealed to to say what answer a solicitor would give to his client who failed to understand how the State could break its bargain in this way. I have sympathy with the solicitor, but it is not the solicitor who would suffer most. It is the client, the man who has had to pay the money, and who now loses the consideration. If it be for the public good that a law should be changed, let it be changed; but when individuals have acquired rights and interests under such a law the uniform practice, at all events until recent years, has always been that in changing the general law for the public benefit you safeguard the interest of the individual. If it is a case for compensation, you compensate him. If it is a case where rights have been acquired, you leave him—the individual—those rights, and forego the public profit so long as those rights last.
    It is not a case in this instance for compensation, because the rights are money rights. You have only to say, as regards contracts already made and rights already acquired, "We leave them untouched, but for the future we decline to repeat the bargain, and it shall not hold in the case of any settlement effected hereafter." I should like to hear the Solicitor-General's honest opinion of the transaction. I cannot conceive that he will really defend it with his whole heart. Here is a premium paid once for all to ensure exemption during a defined period, the period of the settlement, but before that period expires, we are asked to concur in this that the person who has received the premium shall say, "I no longer like my bargain, and I repudiate it altogether. Take your premium back, and I will be no longer liable on my policy." I do not deal in the superlatives to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and I do not need to, though I agree with every word my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) said, but I think it is sufficient

    1825
    to say in simple words that this transaction is really not honest. You cannot so recede from your bargains, and the right hon. Gentleman will be forced, sooner or later, to recognise that fact.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: A good deal has been said upon this matter, but the arguments generally are based on the theory of contract, bargain, and inducement. I do not think the suggestion of inducement to people to settle is based on fact. When the Settlement Duty was put forward, it was put forward with the ordinary duties on unsettled property; it was a matter of choice whether the people should settle or not, and the duties were proportioned as the individuals thought best in their own particular case. Therefore, I do not think the idea of inducement is justified. Then the question of contract or bargain has been advanced. The whole case against the Clause depends upon whether the critics can show that there is anything which may fairly be called a contract or bargain. Our proposition is this: At the outset the Settlement Estate Duty was proportioned to a similar duty on unsettled property, and if at a subsequent stage the similar duty on unsettled property was varied, then the Settlement Duty on settled property should be varied proportionately, assuming, of course, that a fair allowance is made for past payments. I would like to remind the critics of this Clause what their proposition is. It is that this was a contract entered into, when, as the hon. and learned Member has just said, a premium was paid against future payments. It seems a difficult proposition to make out when one remembers the length of time over which a settlement may be spread—it is common for a settlement to extend over a life or lives, and twenty-one years afterwards, so that it may possibly run for a hundred years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—I am not saying it should not—what I am saying is that if the proposition is put forward that the payment is to cover it for all that period, then a stronger case must be made out for the contention. I think the critics are rather assuming proof, instead of proving their assumption. I do not know what is meant by the phrase used by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), who spoke with such moderation and force—the phrase about a contract which is not a contract in the ordinary sense of the word, but it seems to me that, in ordinary language, a con-
    1826
    tract is either a contract or a bargain or it is not. There has been a great deal of talk about contracts, but I am inclined to ask, Who are the parties to this contract? That, to my mind, is the first and fundamental question, and it is a question which, I notice, the critics of this Clause are not very willing to answer. It has been suggested that a contract is made with the man who pays the duty, but I venture to say that that cannot be borne out. The settlement was made on a certain basis by the settlor, and when it was made the tenant for life, or the man called the second tenant for life, may have been an indeterminate person altogether. If, therefore, the contract is with any one person it is made with the settlor, and if hon. Members accept that view, and if there was a contract which was made by the settlor, then I venture to submit that this Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras does not go nearly far enough, because it reads—
    "except in the case of any settlement in respect of which Settlement Estate Duty has been paid before the passing of this Act."
    Take the question of contract. Suppose a marriage settlement was made last year as between two young persons getting married. According to the theory of the critics of the Clause they made it on the basis of this Settlement Duty, and in that case, though there may be no property passing for a generation, the contract should be as strictly observed. My criticism is, even assuming the general proposition to be correct, if it is correct, then this Amendment does not go far enough, because the critics of this Clause have not faced the fundamental question who the contract was made with, and in the absence of that I do not see how they can make out there has been any contract at all; in fact, no case has been made out for a contract. There has been a good deal of loose talk to the effect that if the parties had anticipated what would happen in the future they would not have made settlements, and various arguments like that, but I do not think they carry much weight with them. The great question is whether the case for a contract has been made out. In my opinion no such case has been made out, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is justified in making this variation—provided, of course, that a fair allowance is made in respect of payments that have already been made.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Before a Division is taken I should like to say a few words upon what has fallen from the last speaker about contracts. He has asked who are the parties to the contract. The answer is perfectly plain. There are two parties: one party is the State or Parliament and the other party to the contract are the persons concerned in the settlement.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Even if those persons were indeterminate at the time?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: All persons who are interested in the settlement. Surely that is a perfectly plain and obvious fact, and not a subject for argument at all. The hon. Gentleman says that the contract can be made as in a marriage settlement, without payment, but he does not mean without consideration. There is a consideration. Where the consideration is a payment I believe it is always held that the payment is a kind of seal to the contract; it is recognised as binding the contract.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Does the hon. Member suggest there is no binding contract until the payment is made, even although a marriage settlement has been entered into?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is exactly contrary to what I said. I have said that marriage was in itself a consideration. There must be a consideration. Marriage may be a consideration, but it is always held that where the consideration is a payment that makes it specially binding. It is a seal to the contract. What has happened in this particular case is this. There are two parties to the contract. The State is on one side. I hope hon. Members will listen to this carefully, because it is really a question of the honour of this House. A mere trifling sum of money may be involved, but a great precedent is being created—such a precedent as has never been proposed to this House before. For a small trifling sum of money we are to break the contract. The contract which has been made is a perfectly plain one. A particular duty was imposed by the State, called Estate Duty. When the duty was imposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer who imposed it made a certain difference in the way the duty was levied upon settled property and upon unsettled property. He did so without any pressure, and not, as was suggested by one hon. Member who spoke, under the pressure of a majority. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1828
    confirmed that bargain in his Budget of 1909–10 by doubling the consideration for the contract paid by the settled estate. When he doubled that Estate Duty, he exempted from that double payment those who had already made the payment, thereby admitting that the contract which had been made and under which the payment had been made, could not be interfered with. He said what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, namely, that where the duty was imposed at a certain rate a particular part of it was imposed upon settled property with reference to the general rate upon the property as a whole. So that when the general rate was altered the rate on settled property might also be altered. That was done in 1909–10. The rate was then increased, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, as the rate was higher, the insurance must be higher. Therefore, instead of 1 per cent. insurance he proposed to take 2 per cent. insurance, but where the 1 per cent. bargain had been created and was in existence he did not propose to disturb it.
    If he now said that he would again raise the insurance rate to 3 per cent., but would not disturb existing contracts, then he would be pursuing a course which, although we might differ from him in regard to it, we should have no right to say was dishonest. In these cases the different rate of duty was imposed for a very good reason. It is important that the Committee should understand it, and that there should be no sort of feeling in the Committee that this was in any sense a wrong or corrupt bargain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not suggested that it was a corrupt bargain, but rather suggested that it was a very bad bargain for the State. I do not think it was nearly so bad a bargain as hon. Gentlemen may suppose, for when a settlement is made there is a very heavy Stamp Duty to be paid which the right hon. Gentleman himself has doubled. On the making or remaking of a settlement, a very heavy Stamp Duty has to be paid, and when the settlement is in existence, then for a number of lives the succession is fixed, and no individual has any power to alter that succession. You may have property passing from one brother to another. It frequently happens that there are three or four deaths of people all nearly of the same age, who would equally succeed to the property. It is a common practice under the enormous scale of

    1829
    Death Duties which now obtains, where the owner of the property is competent to dispose of and do what he likes with the property, not to pass the property from one brother to another, but to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself referred to as normal, namely, pass the property to the next generation. Under a settlement he cannot do that. I believe it is the opinion and feeling of many Members of the Committee that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now proposing to do is to put settled property on the same basis as unsettled property. That was the argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. You are doing nothing of the kind. You are putting settled property in an infinitely worse position than unsettled property, because you have got this property tied by the leg. It has paid Settlement Estate Duty, it has paid a heavy Stamp Duty, and now you are removing the privileges for which that property has made double payment, and leaving it tied to the sacrificial post in order that you may extract the last drop of blood out of it, whereas unsettled property is free property, and can escape the duty. Therefore, you are putting settled property in an infinitely worse position.
    Having regard to the different position, to the tied position of settled property, to the duties it had already paid to the State, and to the free position of unsettled property, the imposition of this different kind of duty, whatever the insurance might necessarily be, was justified, was right, and was according to public policy. However that may be, during the existence of this law, certain individuals have made this definite bargain or contract with the State. I believe I am correct in calling the bargain a Parliamentary contract, and that I am using a phrase which is recognised in law. If I am wrong the Solicitor-General will correct me. Is there not such a thing in law, and has it not been referred to in the important financial business done upstairs? Has not a Parliamentary contract been considered up to now as one of the highest and most binding forms of contract in this country? A company goes upstairs before a Parliamentary Committee to deal with vast financial interests, and contracts are entered into under an Act of Parliament which are called Parliamentary contracts. What is going to be thought of a Parliamentary contract if this Clause is passed in its present form? What is it to mean in future? A Parliamentary contract, instead of being the highest form
    1830
    and the most binding form of contract, will be looked upon as a by-word, and there will be no such thing any longer as a Parliamentary contract in the full sense of the word. Parliament has, in respect of a definite tax already in existence—not in respect of general taxes, or in respect of future taxation—which it has itself imposed, gone of its own accord to certain individuals and had said to them, "In consideration of a payment which we ask you to make, we contract to exempt you from any payment of this tax during the settlement."
    The persons interested in that settlement are given a certificate. That certificate is a bond, and the persons interested in the settlement hold from this House of Commons and this Legislature a certificate or bond upon which it is written that no further payment shall be made of this tax during the term of that settlement. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to repudiate that bargain, and is asking Members of the Committee to follow him into the Lobby to help him to do that and to repudiate the just debts of this country. It is a debt. There is no difference between the payment of debt and the remittance of a payment. There is morally arid, indeed, actually no difference between the repudiation of a portion of the National Debt and the repudiation of this contract. You are repudiating a definite contract you have made with an individual in respect of money. The right hon. Gentleman was not present a few moments ago, and I should like to read to him what was said by one of his own supporters, the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford). He said:—
    "What am I, as a solicitor, to say to one of my clients when my client comes to me and asks whether a contract in respect of which he has made a payment has been repudiated by Parliament? When I explain to him that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has altered that contract, he will say to me,' I am an Englishman. I am not the subject of a South American Republic. Englishmen do not repudiate their obligations.'"
    He says Englishmen do not repudiate their obligations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking the House of Commons to set Englishmen the example of repudiating their obligations. Let him do it, and take his party into the Lobby. He is creating a precedent of which every man behind him who knows anything about it is ashamed. I defy any hon. Member to say he would willingly and with a good heart follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the Lobby

    1831
    upon this. It is breaking faith with people with whom you have entered into an honourable obligation. If you can do it, and take your people into the Lobby to do it after you, the shame is upon your head, and the consequences will be upon you too, and they will not end here.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If strong and violent language could have recommended this Amendment to the House, it certainly would not have lacked recommendation in the course of this evening. We have heard many speeches, most of them of the same type and temperature as that which we have just heard.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) did not speak in that way.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: No, and this is not the first time I find myself in agreement with the hon. Baronet. The proposals of the hon. Baronet have been condemned on several grounds. It is alleged that they constitute a breach of faith, that they are in effect breaking a bargain, that they are dishonourable and, as I gather from the last speech, they are equivalent to a repudiation of the National Debt. I think much of this language is due to a misconception of what the proposals really are. The first proposal which the Bill contains is to remove the difference that now exists between passage of property on death when that property is subject to a settlement and the passage of property on death where the property is free, and the whole question arises because the Finance Act of 1894, which dealt with the same two classes of property, made certain deductions as between settled and unsettled property which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes now to reverse. It is said that what was done in 1894 was a bargain, and to have heard the language of hon. Members opposite you would have thought you could find in the Statute the Parliamentary contract to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) seemed so much attached. There is no such thing in terms to be found in the Statute at all. The Statute as it stands, first of all, imposes a duty on all property that passes at a man's death, and for the first time in the history of our financial legislation, it caused duties to be paid on a man's death or property which he did not own and which he could not dispose. In addition to that it caused property that passes, whether he
    1832
    owned it or whether he did not, to be aggregated with the property that he did own in order to form one united estate which was subject to a graduated scale of duty, and finally it, for the first time in the history of English law, made the Death Duties equal as between real and personal estate, and imposed them on both alike. So far as Settlement Estate Duty was concerned, it is quite obvious that the main scheme of the Statute was that the property that passed, and not the property that was disposed of at death, was the property that was to be subject to the tax. I quite agree that the Act provided that if the property was subject to settlement, and the property had paid Estate Duty, it should not pay Estate Duty again.
    Mr. PRETYMANmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: That is exactly what the Statute did not say. I am not saying that the effect of the Statute may not produce the same thing. [Interruption.] I really do think that hon. Members should take the trouble to read the Statute, and if they do not do that, they should do me the honour of listening to what I have to say, and they will find that I do not misinterpret the Statute. In terms the Statute did not do what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) thought it did, and that was to provide that if settlement was once paid for, Settlement Estate Duty should not be paid again. It provided that there should be levied and charged upon all settled property a further duty which was known as Settlement Estate Duty, and fixed at 1 per cent. These two duties were imposed by two totally different and separate subsections of one Section, and so far as the language of the Statute is concerned, it is quite inaccurate to say that the Statute provided any such bargain or contract as that suggested. The result of that Section was this, that settled property was subject to an added burden and had the advantage of a separate exemption, and that added burden, which had the exemption with Estate Duty, should not be twice paid. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that the settlement property should not have the exemption any longer. There is nothing to prevent that being done in the Act of Parliament. What is to prevent your repealing any Section you please in an Act of Parliament? You repeat, "You are breaking a

    1833
    contract." I am pointing out that you are not. So far as the Statute is concerned, there is nothing to prevent the provision of exemption being altered if required. I quite agree it would be unfair to alter the exemption. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I would ask hon. Members to listen to me. I quite agree that it would be unfair to repeal the provision which exempted the settlement from double Estate Duty, unless at the same time some provision was made with regard to the Settlement Estate Duty that had been paid, and that provision ought, in my mind, to be a provision which would be adequate and fair for the purpose of restoring persons who had made that payment to the position they would have been in if it had not been paid. Even that does not appear to satisfy hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members have made strong speeches, and I think that they should listen to the reasons which are being urged against them.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I am anxious to show that what is proposed does place the settled property in a position which is the equivalent to what it would have been if the duty had not been paid. Of course, you cannot turn back the wheels of the clock. You cannot make it exactly as though the duty had never been paid, for the simple and sufficient reason that twenty years have elapsed, and that in many cases settlements have received the full advantage of the exemption. An hon. Member shakes his head. In twenty years many settlements have, in point of fact—we are not now speaking of hypothesis, I only said some, and I was contradicted—some settlements have received the full advantage, and it is perfectly clear that by nothing which you can do can you restore the position to exactly what it was before. All you can do is to provide a fair equivalent for payments that have been made. [Interruption.] There has not been a single word of interruption from this side of the House while language of an extremely violent character has been used by hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Justified!"] When an attempt is made to place before you what I suggest is a reasoned answer to this Amendment, it is not to be heard. I was pointing out that you can by no possibility put everybody as he was in 1894 or in the years that have elapsed from 1894 onwards. What we propose first of all is that the
    1834
    full Settlement Estate Duty that has been paid should be repaid. The next proposition is that during the whole of the period over which that Settlement Estate Duty fails to frank the estate interest shall be allowed on the amount. The real question is whether or not that is a fair equivalent. Nothing of course that I say will satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, but I have not heard a single speech from the other side directed to show that it is in fact unjust. But I ask the Committee to say that it is a perfectly fair and, in some cases, more than a full return. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment said that he treated the Settlement Estate Duty as being an insurance. That was his view of the matter. I do not think that it was an unfair view. But an insurance against what? Against the accident of death during the continuance of the settlement and the avoidance of duty when the death occurred. That was the risk against which the insurance was to run. During the whole of the time over which this duty has been running the risk has been secured; and I would beg hon. Members opposite to notice that if only one death occurs in the settlement, a greater advantage than the money point is instantly received, because the money paid was 1 per cent. from 1909, and only 2 per cent. from that date. And they know quite well that 2 per cent. pays the duty on a £500 estate.
    I think it is quite obvious that whenever a death occurs, though it is only the death of one tenant for life, the settlement receives at once more than the duty it has paid. I quite agree that it does not receive all that the Statute enabled it to enjoy, because the Statute enabled it to enjoy immunity from Estate Duty so long as the settlement ran, and till it got into the hands of some person capable and competent to dispose of it. At any rate, no one can deny that it did receive the advantage in that time in cases where death occurred, and measured in cash value; and in cases where death did not occur it received the advantage of being secured against the double incidence of the duty. No one can deny this advantage. The question of the measure of the value is another thing. That advantage is enjoyed up to the present time. As from the present time that advantage will be enjoyed no more. Who are the people who have suffered up to now by

    1835
    the payment of the duty. Of course it is impossible to put back the settlor where he was before. That is impossible.
    It may be well that a settlor who has settled his property by will—a contingency that never seems to have suggested itself to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who imagined every settlement bore a heavy stamp duty—has provided that the settlement of estate should be paid out of the residuary estate, not at all an uncommon thing; so that the settlement itself has, in fact, never been depleted by a penny piece, and it will be extremely difficult to find people who have in fact suffered by reason of the payment of the duty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] The estate, I agree, but it is difficult to find the person who has suffered—There may be residuary legatees and others—and everybody knows that I am saying nothing unreasonable—and they might be very numerous, while the amount might be trifling. But that is not quite the point. The duty has to some extent attached itself to the settlement, and the view taken by the Government is that the proper way of repaying the 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. duty is to pay it as against the Estate Duty, which, after the passage of this Bill, the settlement would not have to bear. I think that is a perfectly fair method of repayment of the money. Does anyone suggest that it is not a fair method of repayment? The question is not only whether it is a fair method of repayment, but whether it is a sufficiently adequate method of repayment. Nobody suggests that we should pay more than the duty, The only question, and the only support for all the violent and vituperative adjectives we have heard in this Debate, is this—whether we should repay, from now to the time when the settlement of Estate Duty is repaid, at simple interest or whether it should be at compound interest.
    Mr. CAVE: That is not the main point at all. The main point is that you should keep to your contracts.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of Order. Is not the point we are discussing one that does not arise on this Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: The point was referred to by the Member who moved the Amendment, and I have allowed reference to it.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The hon. Gentleman was not here when questions were asked about this, and I did my best to explain to hon. Members behind him who desired information. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) goes back to the beginning and assumes whatever you do, whatever payment you make, however much you may restore the whole of the money, you still could not do it. That is to profess impotence. If Parliament is not at liberty to act independently of what has gone before, taking at the same time care to see that nothing that is being done by virtue of arrangements made under previous Statutes has caused mischief—
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the case is as the hon. and learned Gentleman puts it, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1909 not make previous settlement contracts pay the additional Settlement Duty?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, he had better ask him and not me. I repeat that to suggest that when Parliament has once passed a taxing Statute that it is unable to readjust or to change those taxes—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] That is the proposition: To suggest that Parliament, when it has once passed a taxing Statute, is unable to readjust or change those taxes because those taxes were so arranged as that property was exempted to some extent from their burden by virtue of an added payment—that is to say, that you have an encased fiscal system in this country, and to put it in fetters which never can be changed. The matter does not end there. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been talking through the whole of this evening as though we, the Liberal party, had been guilty of some gross breach of faith which it shocks their souls to think about. More than one hon. Member who spoke suggested that what would really happen was to induce people to settle property upon the idea that the payment of this duty would enable the property to remain from duty to the end of the settlement. That was supposed to be the head and front of our offence. I wonder if hon. Members opposite ever realise what they did themselves in 1900. Under the Act of 1894 there was exempted from the provisions as to the aggregation of duty settlements which had been made by a person other than the man who died under which the property passed upon his death to people other than lineal ancestors or

    1837
    descendants, and that property was not aggregated for the purpose of Estate Duty with his own property, but to be treated as property by itself. The hon. and learned Member opposite will see that that is Section 4 of the Act of 1894. That provided that any person who chose to settle property so that he gave a life interest to a particular individual, and the remainder to other people who were not his lineal ancestors or descendants, should find that that property would never be subjected to an excessive rate of duty by reason of the fact that the tenant for life, to whom he limited the life interest, might die possessed of considerable property. In 1900, I believe, in accordance with the report of a Committee with which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) was associated, that very provision was repealed, and these properties were all aggregated together, with this obvious result, that if you had a settled property of £75,000 and a free estate of £75,000, the effect of your Statute of 1900 was practically to double the duty on the settled property of £75,000, and make it rank with the £75,000 free estate as one aggregated property of £150,000. I am not saying that the two things are identical; but I do ask, if one was a Parliamentary bargain, why was not the other? Why is it a Parliamentary bargain when contained in one Section of a Statute, and then when you come to an exempting Clause in another Statute it is not a Parliamentary bargain? I will tell you the reason. It is because hon. Members opposite thought it right to alter one, and we think it right to alter the other. But the matter does not end there. The Section by which that was altered contained the provision which we find in our Bill.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: What is the Section?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Section 12 of the Act of 1900. I am sorry the hon. Member has forgotten it.
    Mr. PRETYMANmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: You do not think I am stating it correctly? If you have not the Statute before you, I suggest that you should look at it before you say that.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and learned Member always to address the Chair.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I suggest to you, Mr. Whitley, that if the hon. Member has not the Statute before him, it is rather rash and hazardous, not to say somewhat discourteous, to contradict the man who is speaking from the Act of Parliament. The Clause found in our Bill which exempts certain dealings excites the suspicion of the hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment. He asked what was the need of having this Clause in unless we realised that we were doing something wrong. The hon. and learned Member should really have been more sensible of the compliment we were paying to his party. We have taken the Clause verbatim from his own Act of 1900. I cannot help thinking that when he reflects upon this he will see that for once his zeal has lent wings to his judgment, and his judgment has used the loan. I shall be glad if, when the hon. Member has read the Statute, he has any statement to make, to hear it. The real point is this: I trust that I am as sensitive as anyone who is sincerely anxious for the honour and reputation of this House, that nothing should be done in a Statute which could give reasonable colour to the complaints which have been made this evening. The whole case that I have attempted to make has been directed to show that if you consider what is proposed to be done in its entirety—and I would ask, even though the condition of the atmosphere is what it is, and that I myself may have helped to raise the temperature—I would nevertheless ask that, as far as possible, these proceedings should be considered dispassionately. After all, if a thing were done that bore the interpretation which has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, the reflection for that act does not only rest with us—I am not saying for a moment that you as a minority can defeat it—but the Act becomes the act of the House of Commons. Everybody would, I am certain, be anxious to see, not that something which was going to be, done was a disgrace, but that it was fair—if it appealed to them in that light.
    What I really want to ask hon. Members opposite is this: If you start with the assumption that the scheme of taxation laid down by the Act of 1894 can be altered, and is capable of being fairly and honestly altered; if you admit that settled property can be made the subject of taxation from succession to succession notwithstanding that Act; then, if that admission is made, I would respectfully

    1839
    ask the House what is it which constitutes any of those ill and ominous actions which it is said we have been guilty of? We proceed to repay—not at once—for, after all, we have got, in the interests of the taxpayer, to consider the way in which this can be best arranged; you pay it when the next duty falls on the estate. Remember that nobody on the estate suffers until the moment the duty comes to be paid. It is only when duty is imposed that suffering is felt. It is only then that hardship arises. At that moment the repayment which is being made is made. I do agree with the suggestion that it is not adequate; that there is still something left; that as you are seeking to take away the protection which the duty confers, that it is to be only right that you should compensate the person who has suffered by reason of the duty being paid. That person is the tenant for life, because he loses the interest on the capital. In many cases it will be a trifling sum, but whatever the sum, it should be repaid, and it is repaid with interest at 3 per cent., which I fancy is the invariable rate of interest that is paid by the Government. I do not suppose that anybody would suggest that with Government security interest should stand at anything higher than 3 per cent., and the only question left is one between simple and compound interest. It is fair to observe that when interest is charged upon Estate Duty that is unpaid it runs at simple and not at compound interest. It was originally thought in the Act of 1894 that it might run at compound interest. For the purpose of avoiding that it was expressly enacted in 1896 that it should be simple interest. I think it would be hard for any hon. Member to find any statutory precedent for saying that money which was to be repaid, and that bears interest, bears that interest at a compound rate. I do not quite know whether hon. and learned Members opposite all know that in the ordinary way interest calculated on all moneys for which the Government gives interest, apart from contract, is always at simple interest and not at compound interest. [An HON. MEMBER: "Four per cent."] That is trading on commercial interest, not Government interests; and surely Hon. Members are not anxious to deprecate the security of the Government. Then there is the case for this Clause, and I do respectfully ask the Committee to consider it, not for the purpose of seeing if for the
    1840
    moment they can find, or think they can find, something which will form a convenient subject of abuse of any persons or of the Government, but for the purpose of seeing whether, assuming settlements are to be taxed, the proposals made under this Bill for their taxation are not, on the whole, a proper, fair, reasonable, and just adjustment as between settled property and estate.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The learned Solicitor-General has dealt with some heat, and with some more or less success, with various subsidiary points with which we are not much concerned, such as the rate of interest, and whether it should be compound interest or simple interest, and so on. He has addressed himself very heatedly to the two main points of this discussion: first, has Parliament a right to break a Parliamentary contract; and secondly, is Parliament entitled any more than an individual to perpetrate a breach of faith which would disgrace an ordinary individual? This discussion has brought into rather striking relief the contrast between the methods adopted by Sir William Harcourt when Chancellor of the Exchequer and those adopted by the present holder of that office in regard to taxation and finance. Sir William Harcourt knew something about the way taxation should be imposed and he knew something about property, and one thing he knew was the difference between having a life interest in property, in which you enjoy the income for life, and having an absolute interest by which you can dispose of it as you like. He knew that when he said it would not be fair to enforce full payment on each devolution of settlement to a beneficiary who only takes a life interest, or to treat a man with a life interest on the same footing as a man with an absolute interest. That was Sir William Harcourt's view. What does the present Chancellor of the Exchequer say? He lays down for the first time in this or any other assembly that there is no difference between settled and unsettled property, and that there is no difference between life interest and absolute interest. The only satisfaction I had from the speech of the Solicitor-General was that he did not endorse that absurd theory. Yet that was the only justification the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward for departing from the principle on which Sir William Harcourt treated settled property. The Solicitor-General spoke about the Parliamentary bargain, and he told us it

    1841
    was not, in terms, contained within the Statute. What a plea! If we find a thing in substance in a Statute are we to ride off on the plea that it is not there in black and white? The bargain was made between Parliament on the one hand and those who left their property. Parliament says to the owner, "Settle your property and in consideration of that you shall only pay one Estate Duty and one Settlement Estate Duty." That is acted upon by the settlor who settles his property and leaves himself only a life interest. The Solicitor-General talks about restoring people to their original position, but how can you do that in such cases as this? This is not the only way in which the offer was acted upon. On the faith of that Parliamentary offer and pledge, money was paid in the shape of Settlement Estate Duty, and it is a new doctrine to tell me that when a man has altered his position and when money has been paid on the faith of an offer, that you are to go back upon that and say it is no bargain at all. What would be thought of an individual who said that? He would very soon be brought up in the Law Courts, and no man would be more eloquent than the Solicitor-General to convict him. It is a breach of Parliamentary good faith
    which, if perpetrated by an individual, would be scouted as disgraceful. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this payment of Settlement Estate Duty is just as though a man were insuring by paying Settlement Estate Duty as against future payments of Estate Duty. Supposing an insurance company were to receive one premium for the insurance of a man's life, and, after it had gone on for some time, the insurance company wish to revise their bargain, and they say to this man, "It is true we promised to pay you so much money when you die, but we will pay you back your premium now with 3 per cent." What would be thought of an insurance company which did that? There is the fraudulent insurance company sitting on the Treasury Bench! The Chancellor of the Exchequer indulged in a good many false analogies, and, amongst others, he referred to Mr. Pitt, and I think he compared himself with that great statesman. That reminds me of a rhyme:—
    "I hold the office held by Pitt,
    Where Peel and Gladstone sat I sit;
    You pay me fifteen pounds a day
    And yet I say the things I say."
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 297.

    Division No. 168.]

    AYES

    [11.0 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cator, John

    Gardner, Ernest

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Cautley, H. S.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cave, George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Grant, James Augustus

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clyde, James Avon

    Gretton, John

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hall, E. Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Croft, Henry Page

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

    Bann, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Currie, George W.

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

    Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Bird, Alfred

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Blair, Reginald

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Hibbert, Sir Henry E.

    Boyton, James

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Hills, John Waller

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Bull, Sir William James

    Falle, Bertram Godfrey

    Hohler, G. F.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Butcher, John George

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Hunt, Rowland

    Campion, W. R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Jackson, Sir John

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Swift, Rigby

    Kerry, Earl of

    Perkins. Walter F.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Keswick, Henry

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Tickler, T. G.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

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

    Royds, Edmund

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

    Sandys, John George

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

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Stanley, Hon, Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Nield, Herbert

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Younger, Sir George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cassel and Mr. Pollock

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Acland, Francis Dyke.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Adamson, William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Cotton, William Francis

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Gulland, John William

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Crooks, William

    Hackett, John

    Alden, Percy

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hancock, John George

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Cullinan, John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Armitage, R.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Arnold Sydney

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hayward, Evan

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    De Forest, Baron

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Baring Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Delany, William

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barnes George N.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hinds, John

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Barran Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Dillon, John

    Hodge, John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Doris, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Duffy, William J.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Black, Arthur W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Boland, John Pius

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hudson, Walter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Brace, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Johnson, William

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Falconer, James

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Buxton Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Field, William

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Joyce, Michael

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Cawley Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Kelly, Edward

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    King, Joseph

    Clough, William

    Glanville, Harold James

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

    Clynes, John R.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    1844

    1845

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

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Leach, Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sutherland, John E.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sutton, John E.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leiceser)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thomas, James Henry

    McGhee, Richard

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Maclean, Donald

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Radford, George Heynes

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wardle, George J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Waring, Walter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Molloy, Michael

    Redmond, William(Clare, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Webb, H.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Morton, Alpheas Cleophas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Muldoon, John

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Neilson, Francis

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    O'Dowd, John

    Sheehy, David

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    O'Malley, William

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    It being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 8th July, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Clause to be concluded at Eleven of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 204.

    Division No. 169.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Adamson, William

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Bentham, G. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Clough, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Clynes, John R.

    Aldcn, Percy

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    Brace, William

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Armitage, R.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Crooks, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Crumley, Patrick

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, Burghs)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    De Forest, Baron

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Delany, William

    Leach, Charles

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Dillon, John

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roberts, Sir J. Herbert (Denbighs)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Doris, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robinson, Sidney

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Maclean, Donald

    Rowlands, James

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Falconer, James

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Manfield, Harry

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

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Field, William

    Meagher, Michael

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    France, G. A.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Molloy, Michael

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Sutton, John E.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mooney, John J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, George Hay

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morrell, Philip

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morison, Hector

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thomas, J. H.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gulland, John William

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hackett, John

    Neilson, Francis

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hancock, J. G.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walsh. Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wardle, George J.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Dowd, John

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Higliam, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hinds, John

    O'Malley, William

    Webb, H.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hodge, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hogge, James Styles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Holt, Richard Burning

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hudson, Walter

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Johnson, W.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

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

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Kelly, Edward

    Radford, George Heynes

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, Michael

    King, Joseph

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynts

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Baldwin, Stanley

    1848

    1849

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Grant, J. A.

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bird, A.

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Blair, Reginald

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyton, James

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hawins, William Albert Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Butcher, John George

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sandys, G. J.

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Horne, E.

    Stanier, Beville

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cater, John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cave, George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jackson, Sir John

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Swift, Rigby

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Keswick, Henry

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kinloche-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Croft, H. P.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Currie, George W.

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Malcolm, Ian

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Mason, James (Windsor)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Forster, Henry William

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Younger, Sir George

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Chaloner and Mr. Gretton

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the clock at this day's sitting.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    INCOME TAX (MARRIED PERSONS).
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to make provision in the Finance Bill for enabling Income
    1850
    Tax (including Super-tax) in the case of married persons to be separately assessed and charged on the husband and the wife, and for enabling the amount payable in respect of Income Tax (including Super-tax) by the husband or the wife to be recovered either from the husband or the wife or both from the husband and the wife."
    Resolution read a second time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WESLEYAN AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [Lords].—(By Order.)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to move to leave out from the word "amended" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "be recommitted to a Select Committee."
  I can state my reasons for the recommittal of the Bill very briefly. I do not know whether it would be desirable to allow me to make a general statement of my case now so as to obviate the necessity of repeating my arguments on the Amendments which appear on the Paper. On the other hand, if you, Mr. Speaker, decide that I should keep strictly to the reasons for the recommittal of the Bill, I will do so and reserve my arguments on the Amendments. It will be remembered that the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Joseph Pointer) and others opposed the Second Reading of this Bill, and that they ultimately assented to it on the adoption by the House of an Instruction giving power to the Committee to allow representatives of the industrial policy holders to be heard before the Committee. I am fearful that the procedure of such a Committee is not very helpful to the class of people with whom we are dealing here, and I move the recommittal of the Bill to a Select Committee so as to give those people greater freedom and facility for stating their case in all its aspects.
  We are here dealing with a large number of poor people unable to brief expensive counsel and go through all the formalities consequent on a Bill being before a Private Bill Committee of this House. I understand that if this Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee it would then be competent for the Committee to call such of these persons as they desire whereby the whole case might be thoroughly investigated with a view to a just determination being reached. I would prefer not to destroy the Bill so long as I had the power to remedy the grievances to which I would direct the attention of the House, but because I apprehend that under existing procedure
  1852
  it is almost impossible to secure that redress I have had to resort to the expedient of moving in this fashion. I do not know whether I am entitled at this stage to make a general statement of my case, because by so doing I could save a great deal of repetition and the necessity of moving further Amendments on the Paper. I would like to have your advice on that point.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled, if he wishes, to point out what Amendments he would suggest supposing that the Bill were to be recommitted, and, therefore, it would be quite in order in moving the recommittal to indicate the particular Amendments which he desires to see introduced in the Bill. Of course, it is open to him later if he thinks right to move those Amendments.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I would ask whether the hon. Member should also point out that the subjects of those particular Amendments were not considered by the previous Committee that sat, and that before the House is asked to recommit the Bill it should be shown that the Committee which has already sat did not go carefully into the points.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know what the facts were, but it would be open to the hon. Member to say that these points were not considered. It would also be open to him to say that if they were considered they were wrongly decided by the Committee, and that he wished the Bill recommitted in order that those matters should be reconsidered.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I addressed myself to you because I thought that my suggestion might meet the general convenience of the House. My submission is not that the points were not considered, but that they were not adequately considered, and the fact that I have Amendments down shows that in my opinion their decision was not just. The main contention to which I have to direct the attention of the House is the fact that this Bill excludes the larger number of policy holders from the rights of membership. My submission is that all these policies were taken out in the belief that that constituted membership of the society. When we bear in mind that this is a matter which affects the larger portion of assurance in the society we will see that this is a matter of considerable significance. It is admitted in the statement issued by the promoters of

  1853
  the Bill that in the ordinary life department there are 72,725 members assured for £4,206,213, whereas in the industrial department there are 1,397,338 persons assured for £15,143,980. This society was established in 1843, under the laws then relating to Friendly Societies. In the year 1866 it got a private Act of Parliament bringing it under the operation of the Act of 1854, which removed it from the province of all future friendly society legislation, while it retained the friendly society legislation antecedent to the year 1854. The result, as I apprehend it, is that the Society remains a friendly society with regard to its legal constitution, and that all members thereby are entitled to a voice in the management.
  I may be allowed to reinforce that point by a reference to what occurred in the Scottish Court of Session, before Lord Anderson, on January 14th of this year. An action was brought by a member of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society, which raised the question of membership in respect of the administration of the society. Lord Anderson held that "a member is a person who contributes to the funds of a society for prospective benefits" If that ruling is good, I claim that this society has no right to exclude the industrial policy holders from membership and from the rights of membership. In 1875 this society started its industrial assurance branch. I want the House to understand that these industrial policy holders are poor persons who in the main built up the funds of this society, and it does not seem to me to be at all fair that they should now be excluded from the elementary rights of membership, and they should be allowed to participate in the administration of this society. I know that it may be urged that in the case of such a very large number of members it may be very inconvenient and lead to clumsiness of administration, but I do not think that we are entitled to accept that as a valid argument against the claim of the industrial policy holders.
  I remember when the Trade Union Bill of last year was before the House that certain of my colleagues urged that the machinery then proposed for in that measure was very complicated, and would involve various trade unions in a large amount of administrative work. It was pointed out, however, that the men had the right to be
  1854
  directly appealed to and consulted on the questions which were submitted. In my opinion the case, in this connecton, is equally as strong as that urged on the occasion to which I have referred. There are one or two other points which seem to me to afford additional justification for the action I am taking. When the Bill was before the House of Commons Committee a very serious departure was made in Clause 37. I do not know why it was done here. It came from the Lords without any insertion, and certainly it was inserted at such a stage as did not allow the industrial policy holders a fair opportunity to consider it. In Clause 37 there are these words inserted: ("Other than Sections 5 and 10 thereof which shall not apply to the society"). This exempts this society from Sections 5 and 10 of the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Acts of 1896. Not only do the promoters of this Bill seek to exclude the industrial policy holder from the elementary rights of membership, but if I construe this provision aright, they also deprive them of the facility from ever knowing what business is being transacted by or on behalf of the societies.
  Some hon. Members may be able to satisfy themselves that the industrial policy holder ought not to have the status of full membership, but, nevertheless, no one in my opinion will seek to defend the provision which deprives them of the right of knowing what business is being done by the society. After all they have large funds at issue. They have built up the funds of this organisation, even if they have not the right to take an active or direct part in the administration of the society if they have the facility for knowing what business is proposed by the administration of the society they then have means left to them to make representations to the directors or to the ordinary policy shareholders of the society who have the opportunity of taking an active part in the business. I feel that is a very grave departure. First of all, I believe it constitutes an alteration in the general law, a departure which is always viewed with grave apprehension by this House. We often hear talk that it is inadvisable to allow such a departure in a Private Bill, and that it ought to be the specific subject of legislation. Because of that and the general principle of the Bill, the definite exclusion of this majority of persons who have built up the larger

  1855
  proportion of the funds I feel that this House might very well agree to the recommittal of the Bill as desired. It may be urged of course that these industrial policy holders never have been recognised as members in the society. I hope to show that there is very substantial evidence to show that they have been so recognised, and that they are hereby being deprived of a right. The general literature issued by the society does not discriminate as between the ordinary policy holder and the industrial policy holder. It is advocated to the general public as
  "Standing unique as the only mutual industrial office in the United Kingdom."
  And then under a heading called "Special Features" it holds out this inducement:
  "After three years' membership in the ordinary department and five years in the industrial department all adult policies, so long as they remain in force, carry the option of a free policy or cash value."
  The point I desire to make is that there is no indication given to the industrial policy holder that he has no right as a member, and in fact his being bracketted with the ordinary policy holder seems to me an implication that he does possess the right of membership. Further there is a little leaflet here entitled "Something good in profit sharing," which consists of a reprint of an article from the "Insurance Mail" of 20th March, 1909. There it is claimed:
  "This society is worked on the mutual principle; it is the only industrial ordinary mutual office, and so, having no shareholders to take half the profits, it is able to give the whole thereof to its policy holders."
  Again there is no differentiation as between the two classes of holders. In the arrears notice, which is exclusively issued to the industrial policy holders, they are requested, if they are desirious of continuing "their membership" in the society to pay up at a certain time. Reference to policies goes to show that until comparatively recently these industrial policy holders have been regarded as members of the society and entitled to the consequent rights of membership. I have here a goodly number of policies; I will simply quote from one, and if any hon. Member thinks that they are not all in the same fashion I will pass the others to him. The policy states on the face of it that it is issued "liable to the conditions endorsed hereon", and on reference to those conditions it appears that
  "If any doubt should arise at any time as to the age of a member …."
  1856
  Again:
  "Notice of the death of a member shall be accompanied by a registrar's certificate."
  Again:
  "If any dispute arises between the society or any person acting under it and any individual member therein …."
  These references seem to me to constitute proof positive that these industrial policy holders have been regarded as members of the society and ipso facto entitled to the rights and privileges of membership. It is true that since the year 1904 a change has taken place in the form of these policies. The holders are no longer referred to as "members," but as "assured persons," and are called "the assured." That seems certainly to prove that down to the year 1904 these industrial policy holders were regarded as members and, we claim, had the full rights of membership, even if they had not thought well to exercise them. Since 1904 no Parliamentary change has taken place; therefore, it cannot be said that they have legislative sanction for this change.
  I have had conversation with a goodly number of Members of this House, and they have expressed surprise that the Committees should have passed this Bill. Many of them agree that it would be eminently desirable that the matter should be further and more thoroughly investigated. In my opinion that would be the more agreeable course to take. If, after the Select Committee had thoroughly investigated the matter, they felt that the case I had represented had not been established, I, as a Member of this House, would feel bound to abide by their decision. But because I know the class of people with whom we are dealing, a large number of small and poor people, because I appreciate the difficulty of getting them together in sufficient number to enable them to take concerted action to defend their rights, because I know how difficult it is for them to raise sufficient money to secure adequate representation in the way of counsel before the Committee, I respectfully submit that the matter has not yet been sufficiently investigated, that I am not exceeding my rights as a Member of this House in requesting that the points to which I have directed attention should be sympathetically considered to-night, and that the Motion I am now making should receive the support of the House.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  My hon. Friend has made out so complete a case for reference to Select

  1857
  Committee that it is unnecessary for me to go into details. The Bill, it appears to me, is drafted to give the directors of the company almost sole control of its affairs. This appears if ne goes through Clause after Clause. If it is an inspection of the books it can only be done by the directors of the company. We suggest that there should be an opportunity for members to have access to the books. Nineteen-twentieths of the policy holders belong to the class that are excluded from any share in the control. More than a million of industrial policy holders are going to lose their rights if this Bill goes through in its present form. These find two-thirds of the profits. So far as I can make out they are to have no voice in the allocation of these profits. Practically the sole control is to pass into the hands of the directors. The Registrar-General, I gather, gave a ruling at an earlier stage of the Bill that these disfranchised industrial policy holders were in fact members. He then varied his decision which seems to me to show that there is good ground for further inquiry in the direction that we suggest. I find that the agents of this society—and there are many of them scattered throughout the country—are somewhat concerned as to their positions under the terms of the Bill. They have been given certain pension rights—it may be as a matter of grace—but there is no evidence in the Bill to show that what has been set aside for them will be definitely kept apart from other investments, and so guaranteed to them.
  But the most important point of my hon. Friend clearly was that before the Private Bill Committee the comparatively poor persons involved could not possibly get that kind of hearing that would suit them. Counsel at Private Bill Committees are always expensive. The great number of policy holders for whom we speak have not been heard, and if there was a Committee so constituted as to receive a larger volume of evidence without the necessity to pay heavy fees there is a greater likelihood of justice being done. I very well recollect the difficulty that a large number of the poorer of my Constituents in Sunderland had in voicing the grievances they felt in respect of another company's Bill, and I can quite well understand the difficulty which the people of whom we speak have had in respect of placing their case before the Committee. We say that another, a better, and a fairer opportunity should be given to these policy holders. All these policy holders are now losing
  1858
  rights. They represent a huge majority of the persons interested in this company, and we should have a type of Committee that would give an opportunity in an inexpensive way to them of laying their case before Members of this House. If as a result of that Select Committee's findings it is shown that the case we make is not substantial, then it appears to me that what will have happened is that the society's Bill will only be deferred for some time. If their case is a strong one the supporters of the Bill have nothing to fear if they allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee, but they have everything to gain by giving greater confidence to the million policy holders involved by allowing their case to be heard in a fairer and fuller way than it has been.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I am sorry that I am unable to recommend the House to accede to the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Norwich. I may, perhaps, remind the House of what has occurred in connection with this particular Bill. It came on first in the other House and there these persons petitioned in due course, and were heard, I must assume, at such length, and with such evidence as they desired to put before that Committee. I understand as a result of the hearing certain alterations were made in the Bill at that stage. The Bill then came down to this House and when it appeared for Second Reading, hon. Members then moved, in the first place, the rejection of the Bill. The same plea was made as is made to-night. I should say that the persons who petitioned in the other House did not renew their petition in this House, and they pleaded before me the expense of so doing. I went out of my way, rather contrary to a good many of the rules of procedure to make a departure which was very unusual, namely, to say that although they had not petitioned, and although they had not paid the fees, usual to be asked from petitioners in this House, yet they should have a second hearing before the Committee of this House.
  I do not think more than that could be done for petitioners in the case of a Private Bill. I had very serious consideration whether I was not setting up a dangerous precedent in making the proposal which I did. They then, without the expenditure that other petitioners have to bear, were heard. I do not know whether they were heard in person, or by

  1859
  counsel—[HON. MEMBERS: "By counsel"]—but the Motion I put before the House was that they might either be heard by themselves, or by Counsel, as they might please, and I then, I think, said it was the custom of the Committees in this House to hear, not with less, but usually with more patience and attention those who were unable to be represented, and appearing only in person before a Committee. So this House had already taken, I think, every possible reasonable means to see that those persons should have a proper and effective hearing, I am bound to say I think that after all that trouble had been taken, and that unusual procedure adopted in their favour that the decision of the Committee would have been respected, and the matter not raised again on the floor of the House.
  After all it is a matter for the Committee. I confess I tried to go into the merits of this Bill—I am not going into them to-night although I may have opinions upon the matter—I think, it is a subject which required to fee dealt with by a Committee. As I understand it that Committee heard all the evidence that was tendered. If there were not as many witnesses as the petitioners might desire, that could be no one's fault except their own. They would not have any easier opportunity in the case of a Select Committee. They would have to attend all the same, and I do not see, that they could put forward any evidence which they were not given the opportunity of putting forward on the occasion when the. Bill was before the Committee in this House. If our Committee procedure upstairs is to be upheld at all I must claim from the House that at least this case has not had merely the usual procedure in both Houses, but has had exceptional privilege in this House for the purpose of opposing it. I think, under those circumstances the House, and indeed those who rightly on the Second Reading put their case before the House must be satisfied that they have done all they could, and indeed in obtaining the concessions which I ask the House to give them, more than usual to secure that those whom they represent should have even more than the usual privileges of the House.
  Colonel BATHURST: The hon. Member who moved the Motion for the recommittal of this Bill dwelt upon the point of the membership of certain policy holders.
  1860
  Very early in the proceedings I directed counsel's attention to this point and I said that that seemed to me and to the Committee the one and principal point to be decided, and practically all the evidence was devoted to that point. With regard to the number of policy holders we have heard it put at 1,400,000. If the Committee is to go by evidence it seems to me that there should have been more than twenty-five signatures to the petition. When we come to the evidence itself I am bound to say it was about the poorest I have ever heard. There were only two witnesses for the opponents of the Bill and they were both agents of the Company. One of them had formerly occupied the post of Inspector and had been reduced to the rank of agent and the other was an agent. We listened very patiently to all they had to say and when they had closed their evidence I asked each in turn, in my capacity as Chairman, whether they were familiar with the rules of the society and neither of them had read the rules. I asked why they had not read them and one of them pleaded that they cost one shilling, which was somewhat of a reflection when we remember that they were appearing before the Committee upstairs by counsel. The other man gave no satisfactory reason for not having mastered the rules of the society for which he was agent. I hope the House will support the Committee in their decision.
  12.0 M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think it will be agreed that after what the Chairman of Ways and Means has said it would be quite impossible to recommit this Bill without rendering the system of Private Bill Committees an absolute farce. Therefore, I shall vote against the recommital of the Bill. I should, however, like to draw attention to a letter which I received this morning, and which I think is a most improper letter. It is headed "The Wesleyan and General Assurance Society, Special Representative's Office, Hamilton House, 155, Bishopsgate, London, E.G., 13th July, 1914," and it begins:
  "The Consideration Stage of the above Society's Private Bill, which is put down to he taken to-morrow (Tuesday) evening."
  Then it goes on to say:
  "I am in a position to assure you that the great majority of the society's agents and policy holders in your Constituency are earnestly desirous that this Bill (which is vital to the best interests of the society and all concerned) should be passed in its present form. May I therefore respectfully express the hope that the Bill will have your valuable support and that you will vote in its favour."

  1861
  That is all right, and, if it had ended there, I should have come down here, listened to the Debate, and have voted as I thought right; but now comes this paragraph:
  "I will take care that your action in the matter is made known to the many workers in your Constituency who are interested in the passing of the Bill, and will see that at the proper time your help is not forgotten."
  That is a most improper letter to address to a Member of Parliament. If it means anything it means this: "If you do not vote the way we wish, your conduct will be placarded all over your Constituency at the next General Election. The pressure which is put upon Members by people interested in Private Bills is absolutely wrong. The great majority of them seem to think that we shall vote in the way they choose to tell us, provided that there are a larger number of people who say "Vote Aye" than there are those who say "Vote No." This sort of pressure does not influence me, and if the hon. Member who moved the recommital of the Bill had anything of a case at all, after receiving this letter, I should vote for him, but his case, in my opinion is absolutely absurd. He has not a leg to stand upon. Therefore, notwithstanding this letter, I shall follow the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means and vote against the Motion to recommit the Bill.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill has made a single suggestion which should alter the opinion expressed in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the recommital of the Bill. They have unquestionably stated that these people appeared before the Committee, but here is ample evidence that, as a matter of fact, the Bill is changing the membership of a considerable body of people who have invested their money in the concern. There is not much doubt about that. It is a moral certainty that as the Bill stands policy holders are not to be considered as members of the society and are not to have the ordinary rights of membership. Under those circumstances I venture to suggest, though the Committee may have listened to all the statements that were made on the other side, that it is quite clear they paid no attention to them, and that they were more concerned with the passage of the Bill than they were with protecting the interests of the men who had contributed to the financial stability of the society.
  Colonel BATHURST: May I explain that we carefully considered whether they held
  1862
  the status of members and came to the conclusion that they did not?
  Mr. J. WARD: It is evident they are asking to have the Bill recommitted in order to show that they joined as members and have been reinstated as members. My hon. Friend read out some of the literature issued by this society. I have more of it here, and in every case both where arrears were asked for, and in other matters I find such phrases as "If you wish to retain your membership," and so on are used. There is ample documentary evidence, apart from any question that might be put to witnesses to show that the society has reinstated these men as members for a very considerable time. But for some reason or other they are now appealing to this House for a new franchise by which they are going to place these people who have invested their money in the concern on a different basis and status to that which they previously occupied. I am tempted to wish that one could remember and not forget the peculiar change of circumstances which has occurred in this House. Within the last two hours there have been charges of breaches of Parliamentary contract hurled from one side of the House to the other, and it has been contended that Parliament has no right to get men to do a certain thing and then later on at its will and pleasure alter the contract in any way it chose. Strange to say, the speeches to that effect were all delivered by hon. Members opposite. But now, when we come to the case of workpeople who have contributed their money to a concern, we find the same hon. Gentlemen arguing that the law which they contend ought to apply to settled estates, is not to be made applicable to the investments of the working classes.
  I venture to suggest there is ample documentary evidence supplied by the society itself to prove my contention, and when we come to deal with Amendments it can be amplified. Meantime, I should like to be informed by the Chairman of the Committee how it is that in the face of all this official documentary evidence it could come to the conclusion that these men are not entitled to the status of members. How could they so decide when the society itself has circularised these people and given them that status? I can quote from many documents to that effect. In one, for instance, I find the words—
  "I beg to remind you that premiums are now due on your policy—to the amount of the sum stated below, and if you are desirous of retaining your membership."

  1863
  Surely the society would know whether they are members or not. The Committee evidently has ignored everyone of these documents, which show that the society has been acting on the assumption that these people are members and have been contributing their money on the basis of membership. My point is this. If the society wants to alter its status or its relationship to the people who belong to it—people who have contributed their money and will continue to do so in the future, surely it has no right to alter the conditions of membership of those who have been members for years and who, in all these documents, have been recognised as members. It is absurd to pretend that the Committee could declare by its fiat that all these documents were so much fudge, or that this society did not know what it was about when it called these persons members. The Committee has really decided that all these documents are so much trash, and that when the society referred to these people as members they did not mean it. It is a most peculiar thing that such a decision should be arrived at.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it in order on a Motion to recommit the Bill to discuss the proposals in the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's point is that the Committee came to an improper conclusion, and therefore it is right that the Bill should be recommitted. I would point out to him that he has stated that point once already, and that it is unnecessary to insist upon it again.
  Mr. J. WARD: I imagine from the discussion that the difference between an ordinary Committee and a Select Committee is that in the case of a Committee such as that to which this Bill was referred you have to appear by counsel—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and that so far as a Select Committee is concerned it is only necessary to apply stating that you wish to give evidence. In that case the cost of appearing is only a penny postage stamp and the loss of time. I take no account whatever of the suggestion made by the hon. Member who was Chairman of this Committee that there were only twenty-five people who wanted to protest against this Bill. I very much doubt whether but a few of these million people will ever know that their status has been altered until the society gets this Bill as an Act and informs them that for
  1864
  the future they are not members of it and that their relationship to it has entirely changed. I should require positive proof that the whole of the people knew perfectly well that the conditions under which they joined were entirely changed by this Bill, as they undoubtedly are. Then we should see whether there was any protest against it. The fact that at least twenty-five people object is sufficient indication that there is a feeling among the members that they are being injured by this proposal. It is not sufficient that the Chairman of Ways and Means or the Chairman of the Committee should state that they heard the evidence, because it is amply proved from the documents issued by the society that they not only ignored the statements of those who have paid the premiums, but that they actually ignored the documentary evidence supplied by the society itself. In these circumstances it is quite clear that the Committee came to an improper decision and I therefore support the Motion that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: As I was on the Committee which considered this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks, even after the able way in which the Chairman of that Committee has put the matter before the House. Hon. Members who are opposing the Report stage of the Bill have spoken of the industrial policy holders as losing rights and have said that their membership is being changed. That, of course, begs the whole question, which is whether these people ever have been members. I may say for myself, and I am sure I may say it for all the members of the Committee upstairs, that we most carefully considered whether these policy holders ever had been members, and were most anxious not to deprive them of any right they had ever enjoyed. I am perfectly satisfied that we have not done so. I should like to point out that the claim to membership depended upon a certain case heard in Scotland—Pitman v. The City of Glasgow Friendly Society—in which it was held that contribution to a friendly society constituted membership. As a matter of fact this was not a friendly society. It is quite clear that the Registrar of Friendly Societies considered and reconsidered this case, and, in the third communication he made to us he said, speaking of societies of this class:—
  "From and after 13th July, 1854, they ceased to be friendly societies."

  1865
  And again, later in the same document, he says:—
  "As I have reported above, Section 1 of the Act of 1854 provides that they are no longer a friendly society."
  Therefore it is quite evident that this judgment as to the contribution of a friendly society did not apply in this case, and therefore there was no reason on that account to say that those policy holders were members. In fact, they had one and all signed a contract which embodied the rules of the society, and they expressly said membership was confined to two classes only, of which industrial policy holders were not one. The industrial policy which they signed was expressly said to be without profits, and Rule 14 of the society expressly stated that the holders of such policy were not entitled to attend the annual meeting. Therefore, so far it was abundantly clear that they were not members. But on the other hand, it is perfectly fair to admit that the literature which has been quoted to-night, and notices which were sent out and which were perfectly applicable to those classes who really were members were sent to the industrial policy holders to whom they were not really applicable at all. It was a very slovenly proceeding, but it could not overcome the contract which these people had actually signed. It was indeed argued by the counsel who appealed against the Bill that the society was estopped from saying they were not members, because of this loose form of notice which had been sent out to them. There may have been law enough in that to go to the House of Lords to argue as to what the nature of the estoppel was, but I am certain that under this Bill, if it passes, the industrial policy holders will retain all the rights that they have ever practically had, that they have never as a matter of fact claimed membership, although there have been 1,400,000 of them, and that they have never claimed a right to share the profits of the society, although as a matter of grace or business a certain small share of profits was given to them. They were heard before us by very able counsel, and I ask the House to say that they are retaining all the rights that they ever had.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I certainly think this matter ought not to be greeted with shouts of "Divide" when one considers the immense number of people, mainly poor people, whose interests are affected. I suppose if it was a question about ½ in the £ Undeveloped
  1866
  Land Duty we should be talking about it for a month and there would be cries of "Gag" at the end of that. I think it is merely a matter after all that we have a right to consider when we are told by the Chairman of Committees that these very poor people have been given the greatest possible consideration, and indeed that such consideration had exceeded that usually given. Everybody knows perfectly well that the vast bulk of the insured industrial policy holders are very poor people indeed, and that the agents hold their office at the goodwill of the folks who are mainly interested in the prosecution of this Bill.
  The folks who have their head offices in Birmingham hold practically in the hollow of their hands the lives of the very men whose evidence is necessary in order to show how unfair a Bill of this kind is, and so soon as a man puts himself forward, or a number of men are prepared to put themselves forward to establish the case of the policy holders it may be taken that their days would be very short in that particular line of business. I know something of what I am talking about—in fact I have been connected with this company against which, on the whole, I have nothing at all to say. I was only a spare-time agent and did not take much money out of the job. But, after all, has this House not a right to consider the proposals in the Bill? Four men have been sitting on the Private Bill Committee—four estimable men; there is not the slightest doubt about that—but surely when a matter of this kind comes down to the House we are not to be led astray merely by the fact that four men have sat and given their best intellect in dealing with the Bill. We have to consider what it really means. Does anybody who knows anything at all about this company, or any similar company, not know that the industrial policy holders are the backbone of such societies, and that they get from the tens of thousands of the industrial policy holders the funds which enable them to offer very much better advantages to the ordinary policy holders than they would otherwise have got.
  It would be a waste of time and an infliction on the House to go into the literature which has been sent out by the acting authorities of this company, but it is sufficient to say that in every case they obtained their business because of the literature sent out. Instead of that literature being, as stated

  1867
  by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr. A. Williams), of a loose form, it was signed by the general secretary, and it describes the industrial policy holders as members of the society, showing that the society was a mutual society for ordinary and industrial members. The two terms are bracketed, and surely it is not fair to say that this is a loose form of expression, and that a statement signed by the general secretary can be treated lightly, or that it ought not to affect the Bill now under consideration. That is really a very serious point. If week after week and month after month people all over the country have been induced by the circulars sent out to put small sums of money, amounting together to hundreds and thousands of pounds, into the society, it is all the greater reason why the House should give these poor men an opportunity of submitting their case to a Select Committee which would be larger in number. In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom, and when they look into the Bill itself the Committee will see that the existing rights of the industrial policy holders are to be swept away by certain Clauses, these people being treated as if they had no rights.
  Sir M. WILSON: Can the hon. Member say what rights the industrial policy holders ever enjoyed in practice are being taken away from them?
  Mr. S. WALSH: I can only say that they were led to believe that they possessed certain rights, that the literature sent out from the head office spoke of the new forms of profit sharing, and that the industrial policy holders along with the ordinary members were led to believe by the bracketing of the two sets of policies that they were entitled to the benefits of this new system of profit sharing. If they were induced by that kind of manifesto to place their money in a particular venture would not hon. Members say that they were entitled to such relief, and when we are told that after all that was loose literature that ought never to have been issued we must remember that it came from the chief office signed by the chief officer of the company. People were led by this literature to pay their money week after week and month after month. If it was loose literature it was either known that it was loose literature or it was not known. If the head office themselves did not know that it was loose literature that
  1868
  is all the greater reason why this House should give further attention to the case. If the head office did know that it was loose literature, which seems to be the general argument now advanced, then they were obtaining the money of these poor people by fraud. I think that I am putting two honest alternatives. If the literature was known to be loose—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who said it was?"]—I am repating this in order to emphasise it, and in doing so I am not guilty as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London sometimes is guilty of tedious and irrelevant repetition.
  In this case where the literature sent from the head office and signed by the head officer is described as loose literature, it is desirable that the House should know whether it was loose intentionally or loose unintentionally. If it was loose intentionally then I have already described the process. If it was loose unintentionally then there is all the greater reason why this House should give it further consideration. I can assure hon. Members that a great many more than twenty-five people outside this House are taking a keen interest in the fortunes of this measure. We do not wish to prevent an association like this engaging as largely as possible in the beneficial work in which they are engaged, but we do desire when they wish to extend their operations outside their original objects, when they desire to be able to effect work with other societies, to sell their company altogther and to transfer the whole interests of all their members, and when the vast body of members, nineteen out of every twenty, are to have no voice in such a transaction, that the House should take the matter into its very serious consideration. It is for that reason that I support my hon. Friend in asking that the Bill should be recommitted.
  Sir FREDERICK LOW: There seems to me a little risk of this matter being dealt with too hastily. The allegation made in this case, which in my opinion has not been dealt with satisfactorily, either in the speech of the Chairman of the Committee or in that of the other Members of the Committee, is that a number of poor people have been induced to go in to this society by representations made from the head office that by doing so they became members of the society. Now that is either true or it is not. If it is true there is a case for serious investigation. Speaking for myself and feeling satisfied with

  1869
  the assumption that such a charge is true then there is a case that ought to be investigated. That being so, I shall vote for the recommittal of this Bill.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I am very much surprised at the attitude of the hon. and learned Member opposite. He stated the case that if any number of policy holders had been induced to join the society owing to what has been called "loose literature" that constitutes a reason for the recommittal of the Bill. I should suggest that that might be a reason for an action in a court of law, but it is certainly no reason for the recommittal of this Bill. There are only two reasons for the recommittal of this Bill. In the first place, that the Bill has not been sufficiently considered by the Committee—and the Chairman of Ways and Means has entirely disposed of that point and the Bill has been submitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies who supports it—and in the second place, the charge that the Bill constitutes an impropriety is ill-founded. I think that so far from the status of the industrial policy holders being altered it is the policy of hon. Members opposite which is seeking to alter their status. I do not think the House ought to take into account at this stage literature which hon. Members opposite
  state as being "loose literature," and I would suggest that on this question of the status of the industrial policy holders the rules are perfectly clear and distinct. For forty years these rules have been accepted by the policy holders, and no question has been raised until now. No ground has been shown by hon. Members opposite for taking the drastic step of recommitting this Bill and of preventing the Bill from becoming law this Session.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: We ought to have the Law Officers of the Crown here to tell us whether or not these men are members of the society. We ought to be sure of that point. With the object of securing of the Law Officers to say whether we are right or not I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. SUTTON: I beg to second the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to be here, neither is it their duty to give their opinion without a fee.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 40.

  Division No. 170.]

  AYES.

  [12.35 a.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Armitage, Robert

  Falconer, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Barnston, Harry

  France, Gerald Ashburner

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

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

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Gretton, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gulland, John William

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

  Boyton, James

  Hackett, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Helms, Sir Norval Watson

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cator, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cave, George

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Horne, Edgar

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Clough, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Reddy, Michael

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Currie, George W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kelly, Edward

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Leach, Charles

  Stanier, Beville

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Lundon, Thomas

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lyttelton, Hon, J. C.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, Aneurin, (Durham, N.W.)

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Webb, Henry

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wheler, Glanville. C. H.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  E. Cornwall and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

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

  Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  NOES.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Brace, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rowlands, James

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  McGhee, Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Clynes, J. R.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Doris, William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Swift, Rigby

  Field, William

  Molloy, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wedgwood, Joseph C.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hancock, John George

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hayward, Evan

  Pratt, J. W.

  George Roberts and Mr. J. Ward.

  Hudson, Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill, as amended, considered.

  CLAUSE II.—(Interpretation.)
  In this Act and in the schedule hereto annexed the following words and expressions shall have the meaning hereby assigned to them respectively unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction (that is to say):—
  "The society" shall mean the Wesleyan and General Assurance Society as incorporated by this Act;
  "The existing society" shall mean the Wesleyan and General Assurance Society as existing immediately prior to the passing of this Act;
  "The directors" "the chairman" "the actuary" and "the general manager" shall mean respectively the directors the person for the time being presiding on the board of directors the actuary and the general manager or (in the absence of the general manager) his assistant or (in the event of more than one person holding the appointment of actuary or general manager) the actuaries or general managers or one of the actuaries or general managers of the society all for the time being;
  "The laws of the society" shall mean the provisions of this Act;
  "The rules" shall mean the rules of the society for the time being in force;
  "Policy" shall mean the instrument evidencing the contract by the society for the payment of any money on the happening of any contingency or event whether dependent on or connected with
  1872
  life or not or for the payment of any annuity and the word "assurance" shall mean such contract;
  "Member" or "member of the society" shall mean a person (whether a minor or of full age) who is either insured in the existing sickness department or is an original grantee from the society of a subsisting policy of insurance in the ordinary life assurance department of which he remains the beneficial owner whether such policy was granted before or after the passing of this Act and whether the same be incumbered or not or if the grantees of any such policy be more than one the grantee nominated for that purpose by notice in writing sent to the society by all such grantees or failing such nomination the grantee whose name appears first in the policy but shall not include any person insured in the existing industrial life assurance department or in any other new department hereafter established by the society;
  "Lands" shall mean and include lands houses buildings tenements messuages and hereditaments of every description or tenure and wherever situated and every vested contingent reversionary or other estate right or interest therein or issuing thereout respectively;
  "Existing" shall mean existing immediately before the passing of this Act;
  "The Friendly Societies Acts" shall mean the following Acts, namely, 10 Geo. IV. c. 56, 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 40, 3 and 4 Vic. c. 73, 9 and 10 Vic. c. 27, 13 and 14 Vic. c. 115, and 17 and 18 Vic. c. 56.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to move to leave out the words, "the ordinary life assurance department" ["subsisting policy of insurance in the ordinary life assurance department"] and to insert instead thereof the words "either of the life assurance departments.
  I feel bound to test the feeling of the House on this essential point of my own objection to the Bill, namely, that of membership of the society. But I can assure the House that I do not intend to repeat the arguments I advanced in the general statement that I have made on the Bill. I do not think there can be any doubt that a large proportion at least of the industrial policy holders have been induced to join the society in the belief that they were to be eligible as members of the society. I am aware that agents who have canvassed on behalf of the society have contemplated that those whom they induced to join were to be recognised as members and would be able to exercise the rights of membership. Having regard to the important fact that the industrial policy holders have built up by far the larger proportion of the funds, I submit that they have a right to a share in the administration of what, after all, is their own money. In the statement issued by the promoters in support of the Bill we find, in paragraph 11, the following:—
  "Under these circumstances it would be wholly wrong and would inflict a grave injury upon the 72,725 ordinary policy holders, the existing members of the society, many of whom are insured in substantial sums, and who, by attending general meetings, and by appointing the directorate, are at the present time entitled to control the society's affairs, if the membership were enlarged as proposed by introducing the 1,400,000 holders of industrial policies."
  Here you have, I submit, simply a regard for the interests of the smaller section, whom we are entitled to say are mainly well-to-do persons, as against the interests of the poor industrial policy holders. Certainly we on these Benches are bound to enter an emphatic protest against the provision in the Bill in this important regard, because we claim that a proportion of these members at least—I do not need to put it any higher than that for the purposes of the case I am trying to make—have been induced to take out policies on consideration that they became members of the society and were entitled to the rights
  1874
  of membership. Further, there is a large sum of money invested by them in the society at stake, and it is proposed in this Bill to vest in the ordinary policy holders and the directors the absolute disposal of that huge sum. We claim in the circumstances that the industrial policy holder has a right to expect from this House that some provision shall be made to safeguard his interests. We submit that such safeguard can only take the form of laying down in the Bill that they are entitled to be regarded as members, and should, therefore, become possessed of the privileges of membership. I therefore move my first Amendment, and I may point out that as it raises the general question which we have been discussing a number of the other Amendments on the Paper are consequential upon it. That being so, I may relieve the minds of some hon. Members by stating that having tested that question, I shall not move a number of the Amendments, although there are two further points to which I shall feel bound to direct the attention of the House.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Let me assure hon. Members that we have no desire at all to waste the time of the House. I am quite sure that every hon. Member does really desire to do the right thing in the case of a Bill of this kind. Even assuming that the rights that we now desire to see established did not exist in the case of the industrial policy holders in the past, we say that surely it is a right thing for this House, when it knows that out of every twenty policy holders in this society roughly speaking nineteen are industrial policy holders, and that the vast sums which they have contributed are to be left entirely unprotected so far as their voice and vote are concerned—we say that even if it were the case in the past that this right did not exist, it is surely right for the House now to put an end to such a flagrant example of inequality. We desire to give to both sections of policy holders, the ordinary and the industrial, a proper share in the management of the society. I will not say at this moment that man for man the industrial policy holder should have an equal right with the ordinary policy holder—that would be a matter for subsequent discussion—but my friends and I do believe that this Clause ought to recognise both

  1875
  sets of policy holders, and remove what every member of the House must admit to be a grave and serious inequality.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: I should like to start by saying that I have no interest in this Company, but I think I do know something about insurance matters, and, therefore, I venture to make a few remarks. The suggestion has been made that these industrial policy holders are going to lose rights and to be excluded from membership. There is no foundation whatever for this. They have never had any rights or exercised any rights, rights. They have never attended an annual meeting. They have never claimed to attend an annual meeting. They have never claimed any rights whatever. Then what benefit is going to result from a policy holder being a member? What is he going to get? Not a single thing. It would not make one penny difference to him in any shape or form if it were true. These poor people are scattered all over the country. What does membership mean? Do they take part in the annual meetings? Can they attend annual meetings at Birmingham and elect directors? The thing is preposterous. The object is not to give any benefit to these policy holders, but to enable some other people to serve their own ends by getting on to the management of this Society. As a matter of fact, the policy is absolutely clear that they are not members. They are referred on the policy to rules which make it perfectly clear that they are not members and have no voice whatever in the management. They have never been regarded as members, and have never made any claim to be members until this Bill was introduced.
  Mr. J. WARD: Why do they not call them members?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: That does not alter the position, and I want any hon. Member to show what difference it would make to one of these policy holders if they were all members.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why exclude them?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: For this reason: The ordinary policy holders founded this organisation; it was not founded as an industrial society.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: They built it up, though.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Oh, no. The ordinary members opened this branch and established these policies, and the point I want to make is that the funds of the ordinary policy holders are the funds that are responsible and would be drawn upon if there were any deficiency in the industrial branch. That is why you cannot bring these other members in to manage when they are not responsible. You are going to give them power to manage and deal with the funds of the other members who are the responsible members. It would introduce endless confusion in the management to add 1,500,000 other members. How in the world could it be done? And then it has been said that the bulk of the profits come from these members. That is not true. Seventy per cent. of the profits come from the ordinary branch. And what is one object of this Bill? It is to enable the directors, although it is not part of the conditions of the policy, to give a share of the profits to the industrial members. Another thing, hon. Members have spoken as if it were usual for policy holders in insurance companies to have a voice in the management. The wealthy policy holders in this country in the main have no voice whatever in the management of the offices in which they are insured.
  The great insurance offices of this country—the names of the Alliance, the Commercial Union, the North British and Mercantile, the Royal and other great insurance offices are household words—are companies, and those who take life policies in those companies have no voice whatever in the management of the companies. They do not want it, because it is no use to them, and the suggestion that, because they take policies in the concern, therefore they should have a voice in the management is a great misconception. In the great bulk of the insurance companies they have not got it, and why here? I remember that the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Sheffield, when he spoke on this matter, excused these people for not having exercised rights on the ground of their ignorance and inexperience in business matters. Surely that also cuts another way. It is not desirable that a great concern should be put in the hands of people of great ignorance and inexperience in business matters. They would have to

  1877
  manage other people's money, and it would be a great injustice to the present policy holders, and to the policy holders in the ordinary section, if the management were taken out of the hands of those who are now financially responsible, and put in the hands of those not financially responsible. Therefore, I hope the House on sound commercial lines and ordinary justice will reject this Amendment.
  Mr. J. WARD: After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman one would think that these societies must be extremely badly managed if none of the privileges, or at least the privileges we suggest members have already, have never existed. One wonders what a good deal of the literature of this society can mean. They issued quite recently an "A B C of Life Insurance," and they say:—
  "The Wesleyan and General Assurance Society has no capital. It holds funds not exceeding £1,659.000. These funds are held in trust entirely for the benefit of policy holders. The Society has no shareholders. All profits are divided among policy holders. This favourable point enables the directors to treat their members very handsomely when they are unable to continue their membership. Thus, when an industrial policy has been in force for five years, a free paid-out policy will be granted on application being made while the insurance is in force."
  And on they go, and they finish up with this statement:—
  "It is worthy of note that the amount paid back as surrender value during the last thirty years to members who were unable to keep up their payments exceeds £289,000."
  All that I can say is that this literature is a complete answer to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Either this literature is a fraud or the right hon. Gentleman's statement is not quite accurate. I leave it between him and the society to say which is right and which is wrong, but it is clear that the two things do not coincide with one another.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Will the hon. Member tell me what statement of mine is not correct?
  Mr. J. WARD: Well, the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these members had never got any right—that they had no rights at all.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: They have now every right that they had before. It does not deprive them of a single right.
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. J. WARD: Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who are supporting this Bill so vigorously are trying to
  1878
  prove too much. If there is nothing in this membership, why is the society so anxious that for the future these policy holders should not be known as members? It seems to me that the society itself placed a certain value on the title of "members" and "membership" which it is proposed now to destroy. It is rather a remarkable combination we have here to-night. I am pleased the Government did not put their Whips on for the last Division, but I notice the Opposition Whips were telling in favour of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All I know is I saw a Whip of the party opposite directing Members where to go. Therefore one might assume it is almost a party matter. At any rate I do not wish to argue the matter further. I prefer to vote on it. The only thing I say about it is that if the society is so anxious to destroy the title "member" and "membership" it seems remarkable that there should be no rights attached to membership. There is another matter we shall discuss presently, where they are making inroads on the general law that applies to these institutions, but capitalist combinations do not go out of their way to abolish the title of member unless there is some advantage to themselves from doing so. If it is an advantage to the society it is a moral certainly that it is equally a disadvantage to the member to be deprived of his membership. For that reason I shall support my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Spen Valley, said nobody would lose any rights under the provisions of this Bill. Well, this much is certain, that when this Bill becomes law none of these people who at present claim to have rights as members on the ground that they are holders of industrial policies will be able to make that claim. The Bill, if it becomes law, will for ever wipe out any claim they may have to be members or to be considered members of the society.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Will the hon. Member allow me. That is not correct. The Bill reserves every existing right.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: The Bill defines members of the society at considerable length, and it defines them very carefully so as to exclude holders of industrial policies. It is said the industrial policy holder has been excluded before. That is the whole question. I should have thought

  1879
  myself there could not have been the slightest doubt that up to the present time the holder of an industrial policy was a member of the society. It must be remembered that this society has not been an ordinary insurance society issuing policies in the way the right hon. Gentleman has just described. It has been a friendly society formed under the Friendly Societies Acts and deriving its power from the Friendly Societies Acts of 1829 and onwards. Under these Acts of Parliament the members of the society are the people who have subscribed for insurance within the society, and the management of the society is given to them. And when, in 1873 or whenever it was, this industrial branch was first formed the members who came into insurance then became members of the society and became entitled to a voice in its management. They did not lose that right because other managers of the society passed a rule first of all in 1883 excluding them from attending general meetings, and then in 1904 saying they were no longer members of the society. Nobody had any right to pass these rules, and these policy holders remained members of the society where the Act of Parliament had put them.
  If you pass this Definition Clause without the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member you will deprive them for ever of the right which they might up to now have enforced, I think—and which they certainly can have tested in a court of law—in participating in the benefits which belong to members of the society. When the House comes to make up its mind as to whether these people are to be included, I ask hon. Members to consider three things; first of all the great number of industrial policy holders there are—by far the greatest number of the people in the society, and entitled to careful consideration by this House. Secondly I ask the House to consider the material it has for forming the opinion that these people were induced to come into the society on the understanding that they would be members and would have the rights of members. In the third place I ask the House to remember that there is, up to the present moment, at any rate, a doubt as to their legal position, and I ask the House not to interfere with the legal position so
  as to deprive them of any rights they possess, but to leave it to the courts to decide whether they have rights as members or not. For these considerations I do hope the House will accept the Amendment, which will leave these people in the position they were in before, and which will not have the effect, which the Clause without the Amendment would undoubtedly have, of depriving them of any rights they possess.
  Mr. HANDEL BOOTH: The hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sorry to say, has not displayed in this matter his usual accuracy. One of his earlier statements, for instance, was that this was a friendly society. That is not correct. I hold in my hand a signed statement by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who says:
  "As I have reported above, Section 1 of the Act of 1854 provides they are no longer a friendly society."
  Mr. J. WARD: What is the date of that?
  Mr. BOOTH: If the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies says they are no longer a friendly society—
  Mr. S. WALSH: Give us the date.
  Mr. BOOTH: If the Chief Registrar says they are no longer a friendly society I want the House to see how confused they are in following this legal argument. All this was gone into before the Committee. Counsel who, with all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rigby Swift), were quite able to deal with the matter, threshed this point out almost to the utter weariness of the Committee. I took the trouble to sit behind counsel and listen to what was being said, and I submit it is not fair to the House at this time to involve in these legal arguments. Whatever may be said, Clause 10 keeps the rights affected as they have been in the past. The Committee heard the case of the policy holders and therefore why try it again. I have no interest in this Company, but I am a director in a company in competition with it, and if I were to take a purely selfish point of view I would ask either the House to reject this Bill or accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 36.

  Division No. 171.]

  AYES.

  [1.12 a.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Armitage, Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Barnston, Harry

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gretton, John

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

  Boland, John Pius

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

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gulland, John William

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Boyton, James

  Hackett, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Clough, William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stanier, Beville

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kelly, Edward

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Webb, Henry

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Maclean, Donald

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Falconer, James

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

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Worthington Evans, L.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Booth and Mr. Amery

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  NOES.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brace, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Rowlands, James

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duffy, William J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Sutton, John E.

  Field, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Swift, Rigby

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Parry, Thomas H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  G Roberts and Mr. John Ward.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pratt, J. W.

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

  CLAUSE 25.—(Reserve Funds).
  (1) Out of any surplus or profits of the Society or of any particular department thereof determined by any annual or other investigation into its financial position made pursuant to the provsions of any public Act relating to assurance companies for the time being in force or to the rules the directors may set aside and carry to any reserve or reserves whether general or special such sums as they think expedient.
  (2) All sums so set aside to any reserve and also all sums standing at the date of the passing of this Act to the credit of any reserve or special fund of the existing society shall at the discretion of the directors be applicable for meeting the expense of establishing making known or providing deposits or funds required in connection with any new department hereafter established by the society or of purchasing or taking over any business hereafter purchased or taken over by the society or for meeting any other contin-
  1882
  gencies or for repairing or maintaining the buildings and offices of the society or for providing pensions superannuation allowance or gratuities for the staff employés or ex-employés of the society or the existing society or the wives families dependants or connections of any such persons or for equalising bonuses or for any other purpose for which the directors consider that it is in the interests of the society that the same or any part thereof should be applied and pending such application may at the discretion of the directors be invested upon any of the investments upon which the moneys of the society not required to satisfy the immediate claims and expenses of the society may be laid out and invested by the directors without its being necessary to keep the investments of the reserves separate from the investments of any other funds of the society.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause the words, "Provided that the Agents' Pension Reserve Fund shall only be applied to

  1883
  the objects for which the same was established." I do not know whether supporters of the Bill would be inclined to meet me in this matter, but I can deal with it quite briefly. In this Clause it is proposed to take powers to dispose—
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I have to say that the promoters of the Bill will accept the Amendment if it will be held to shorten the proceedings.

  CLAUSE 37.—(Saving of General Acts).
  Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to exempt the society from the provisions of the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, affecting industrial assurance companies (other than Sections 5 and 10 thereof which shall not apply to the society) or the Assurance Campanies Act, 1909, so far as the same are applicable to the society or from the provisions of any general Act passed during the present or any future Session of Parliament affecting assurance companies formed previously to the passing thereof.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I beg to move to leave out the words "(other than Sections 5 and 10 thereof which shall not apply to the society.)"
  In moving this I should like to acknowledge the spirit in which the last Amendment was acceded to, and I can assure the hon. Member that I shall try to reciprocate by making my observations as brief as possible. As regards my present Amendment, if I am correct in my construction of these words in the Clause, this is really an alteration of the general law, and in my opinion it ought not to be effected in a private Bill of this character. I understand this is a power which is not possessed by any other similar society. It may be that it is desired by all societies, and that if support is forthcoming on this occasion it will establish a precedent which will be followed by those other societies. As I read it, this is a further disability imposed on the policy holders of this society. I might here say parenthetically that the Bill passed through the House of Lords without this point being inserted, and, if I am correctly informed, it was at the last moment that it was inserted in the Commons Committee. The specific section referred to—Section 5 of the Collecting
  1884
  Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896—deals with provisions for general meetings. Why the society should desire to be exempted from the provisions of the Act with regard to general meetings I do not understand in the least, and I say frankly that I do not think they would be giving away anything in particular if they were to accept this Amendment.
  There may be a strong case in support of the retention of the words, but I am not acquainted with the arguments in favour, and I would be glad to hear them. The Clause as it stands seems to have this effect. The House has determined that the industrial policy holders have not the rights of ordinary membership and it seems to me that here these men are placed under further disabilities, because if this society is exempted from the provisions of the Act of 1896 with respect to general meetings, and the advertising and announcement of those meetings, the industrial policy holder will have no means whatever of knowing when those meetings are to be held, and the nature of the business to be transacted before those meetings. I made use of the statement at the commencement of the Debate that it might be decided that this large mass of persons should not have the right of membership. Nevertheless, I feel they ought to have some means of knowing the business that is likely to be transacted at the meetings, and the date when such meetings are to be held, because if they felt anything was occurring which was likely to prejudice their interests, at any rate they should have the opportunity to get the friendly ear of a director, or of some of the ordinary policy holders who have a right to take part in the management of the business. It is under those circumstances that I venture to move the Amendment, and I think the promoters might very well yield on this point.
  Mr. GILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the Bill."
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I understand that these words were put in to meet a point which was raised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and I believe there is no objection to accepting the Amendment provided some words were inserted in the Schedule to provide that the annual general meeting in Birmingham shall be held at the Central Hall, Corporation Street, and the hour shall be fixed at

  1885
  twelve noon. It is a matter of convenience and of machinery, and there is no point of difference with the promoters of the Bill. As the person in charge of the Bill for the promoters I do not see any objection in principle to the Amendment moved.
  Colonel BATHURST: I am afraid I am not quite clear as to the exact reason for putting in these words. So far as I remember they were inserted to meet the convenience of the promoters so that they would know where the meetings were to take place, and when they were coming on, instead of having them shifted about.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I understand Clause 5 requires that notice of meetings should be given in one of two ways, either by notice to every member, which would mean sending out 2,000 notices or thereabouts, or else by advertisement in newspapers in every county in which the company is carrying on business. That was reasonable enough when there were very few newspapers, and when the area in which business was carried on was very small; but if it were now insisted upon it would practically mean advertising in every paper in the United Kingdom. What is proposed to be substituted for that is a fixed date and a fixed hour for the meeting, which will be known to every member. Moreover, as far as the notice of the meeting itself is concerned, it is proposed that two advertisements shall be inserted in two newspapers circulating in Birmingham where the head office of the company is situated. That seems to me to be quite reasonable, having regard to the extensive nature of the business, and the large number of newspapers which have grown up since 1854, when the original provision was made. The House, I think, would not do well to saddle the company with the unnecessary expense of observing the old form of notice.
  Mr. J. WARD: While our friends the enemy are suggesting some modification I should like to say one word on this subject. I do not know whether this was not a question on which a point of Order should have been taken when the Bill was set down for consideration, because I have been given to understand that these words in Clause 37 of the Bill "other than Sections 5 and 10 thereof" is really a repeal of a general Act of Parliament relating to the society. It is not applicable to one
  1886
  particular society, but it is a general law, and I do not know whether it is in accordance with your ruling that it is impossible to repeal a public Act by a Clause in a private Bill of this description. If what the hon. Member for Colchester says is correct, there is nobody on this side of the House who would not be only too delighted to assist in bringing conditions respecting notice of the meeting into something like a moderate shape. But at the same time, we do not like to see these words, repealing, as they do, a public Act of Parliament, continued in the Bill without we know that what we are doing is strictly correct. This is more than ever the case when we are told that this Bill, after full consideration by a Committee in the House of Lords, came down to this House without these words having been inserted.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: It may shorten matters if I say at once that I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.

SCHEDULE.

  II.—MEETINGS OF MEMBERS.
  2. The Annual General Meeting of the members shall be held in Birmingham on the first Tuesday in the month of April in every year at such hour and at such place as the Board shall determine.
  Notice of the precise place, date, and time of the meeting shall be given by advertisement in two of the Birmingham daily newspapers at least ten days before the date of meeting.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "in" ["Meetings of the members shall be held in Birmingham"] and insert instead thereof the words "at the Central Hall, Corporation Street."
  Leave out the words "such hour and at such place as the Board shall determine," and insert instead thereof the words "twelve noon."—[Sir Edwin Cornwall.]
  Bill to be read the third time.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes before Two a.m., on Wednesday, 15th July.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  UNFOUNDED CLAIM.
  UNFOUNDED CLAIM.
  West Clare Estates.
  West Clare Estates.
BRITISH ARMY.
  OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
  OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
  Teachers' Pensions.
  Teachers' Pensions.
  Industrial Schools (Number of Inmates).
  Industrial Schools (Number of Inmates).
POST OFFICE.
  CLASSIFICATION (MARGATE).
  CLASSIFICATION (MARGATE).
  DUBLIN (INDOOR STAFF).
  DUBLIN (INDOOR STAFF).
  Light Railways.
  Light Railways.
  Veterinary Scholarships.
  Veterinary Scholarships.
  Valuation of Lands.
  Valuation of Lands.
  Scottish Committees of Inquiry.
  Scottish Committees of Inquiry.