Sitting of 4 May 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Ellesmere Port and Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Brentford Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
London United Tramways Bill,
Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Deal and Walmer Electricity Bill,
St. Anne's-on-the-Sea Improvement Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Mexborough Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (by Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. HASTINGS DUNCAN: The County Council of Wakefield have on several occasions opposed this Bill, but the county council now authorise me to state it is prepared on this occasion to withdraw their opposition to the Bill so long as by doing so their position is not prejudiced in opposing this Bill in Committee stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up. We cannot hear a word."]
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The petitioners against the Bill will not be understood as abandoning any objection to the Bill, and the fact that the

3
Second Reading is unopposed will not be taken to preclude them from raising for consideration by the Committee all points raised in the petition relating to the merits of the Provisional Order scheduled to the Bill, or to the validity or force of the Order, having regard to the fact that it is one of the Orders scheduled to the Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 21) Bill, which Bill was recently rejected by this House. I understand that is concurred in by the representatives of the borough of Wakefield.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I wish to explain on behalf of the County Councils Association which took an active part in opposition to this Bill, that after what has been pointed out by my hon. Friend they do not intend to oppose the Bill being read a second time?
Question, "That the Bill be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed.
Dee Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

TRADE BOARDS ACT PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Trade Boards Act, 1909." Presented by Mr. BURNS; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]
MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Petition against alterations (praying to be heard by counsel) of the London County Council; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 29th April, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners entitled the National Health Insurance (Representation of Approved Societies) Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 6, 1914).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and United States of America renewing for a further period of five years the Arbitration Convention signed at Washington on 4th April, 1908. Signed at Washington. 31st May, 1913. (Ratifications exchanged at Washington,. 10th April, 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrews for 1912–13 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of St. Andrews for the year 1912–13 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1914–15).
Copy ordered "of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—[Mr. Montagu.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 211.]

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Great Grimsby, in the room of Sir George Doughty, deceased.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Wild Birds' Protection (International Conference).
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have issued an invitation to various foreign: Governments to be represented at an international conference in order to secure an agreement for the prohibition of the import and export of skins and feathers of wild birds; if so, whether it is stipulated that each Government taking part in the

  5
  conference must undertake to legislate to prohibit the import and export of the plumage of all wild birds except ostriches and eider ducks; and whether he will state which foreign Governments have been invited to be represented at the conference and from which have replies been received, and, if any such replies contain a refusal, what reason has been alleged?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): His Majesty's Government have invited foreign Governments throughout the world, with the exception of France, Greece and Denmark, to take part in a conference to consider whether it would be possible to secure an international agreement on the following lines: (1) the importation of the skins and feathers of wild birds (other than ostrich feathers, eiderdown, and such other feathers as it may be considered desirable or unobjectionable to except) to be prohibited; (2) an exception to be made in the case of skins required for bonâ fide, scientific purposes: the right to import for such purposes to be confined, however, to institutions or persons to whom the Government of the country into which the skins are imported has granted a special permit, which would only be given on the recommendation of a committee of ornithologists; (3) each Government to undertake to promote legislation for the prohibition of the export of skins and feathers from the countries and territories under its control, subject to the exceptions specified above. An undertaking to initiate legislation is not a condition of admission to the conference. The French, Danish or Greek Governments were not invited because they had on previous occasions intimated that they would not be able to take part in such a conference. So far the following countries have accepted the invitation of His Majesty's Government: China, Colombia, Guatemala, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Portugal, Roumania, Salvador, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States. Brazil, Ecuador, Honduras and Venezuela have refused—the first three gave no reasons for their decision, but the Honduranean Government have expressed their intention of adhering to any convention which may be drawn up by the conference. The Venezuelan Government, on the other hand, refused the invitation on the ground that the pro posed convention would operate to the
  6
  prejudice of the manifold interests which in Venezuela are bound up with the egret plume industry. Twenty of the Governments which were invited have not yet replied, and the final decision of certain others is not yet definitely known.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to have that answer circulated amongst the members of Standing Committee B?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will see what can be done.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether there is any chance of success attending an international conference, while France, the chief market for feathers, abstains, from participation?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I am not an expert in the matter.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that if the Bill is, passed in its present form it will do incalculable injury to 25,000 or 30,000 workers?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is more a matter for the Committee on the Bill.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: When does he contemplate the conference meets, and how long will it last?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is impossible to tell that at present.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that in 1910 he appointed a Committee consisting of representatives of the Colonial Office, India Office, Board of Trade, and British Museum, to consider how far it might be possible to restrict the demand for plumage by legislation in this country and the Colonies, or by international agreement, and that the Committee addressed to him a Report expressing the unanimous opinion that the only thoroughly satisfactory method of attaining this end is to secure an international agreement by which the importation of such feathers will be prohibited by all civilised countries, except when they are introduced for bonâ fide scientific purposes, whether he will state why His Majesty's Government have introduced a Bill, the application of which is confined to the United Kingdom, to the detriment of British trade, without securing international agreement, in view of the fact that

  7
  the Committee reported that this is the only thoroughly satisfactory method of attaining the end desired?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): His Majesty's Government considered it desirable, while taking steps to secure an international agreement on the subject, to show their own willingness to enter into such an agreement by introducing the legislation in question. The tariff changes recently introduced by the Government of Canada include a general prohibition of plumage import similar to that of the Government Bill; and within the last two years nearly every Colony not possessing responsible Government has enacted ordinances prohibiting the export of plumage.

  Board of Allotments (Application for Cottages).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in the cases of the thirty-six cottages applied for in 1913, together with allotments, as reported in the Annual Report of the Board on Allotments, the necessary sanction to build was in any cases refused by the Board of Agriculture or by the Local Government Board; and, if so, in how many cases and for what reasons?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I have to say the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Irish Store Cattle).
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many counties and boroughs in England, Wales, and Scotland allow Irish store cattle to enter their local areas, respectively, and how many do not?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: In England twelve counties and five boroughs, in Wales two counties, and in Scotland twenty-four counties and ten burghs have regulations in force the effect of which is to prohibit the entry of Irish store cattle into their districts. There remain in England thirty-nine counties and 188 boroughs, in Wales ten counties and eight boroughs, and in Scotland nine counties
  8
  and twenty-two burghs, into which Irish store cattle can be moved subject to the conditions prescribed in the Orders issued by the Board, which have already been explained to the House.

  London Museum.
  Major GASTRELLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that carriages are not permitted to draw up at the entrance to the London Museum, Lancaster House, but are obliged to stop some distance away, causing much inconvenience in wet weather; and whether this prohibition is due to an alleged right of way; and, if so, will he take necessary action to remove the same?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner is aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The restriction on the access of vehicles does not arise out of questions of rights of way. The arrangements are provisional, and will be further considered when more experience is available as to the use made of the museum.

  Hampton Court Palace (Charge for Entrance).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East why a charge of 1s. is to be imposed for entrance to Hampton Court Palace; whether he is aware that the privilege of free entrance to the Palace has been enjoyed by many thousands of people for some years; and whether, in view of the unanimous protest being made against the fee for admission being imposed, he will restore to the public the privilege of free admission?
  Mr. BENN: The reasons for the arrangements made were fully explained in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hough ton-le-Spring on the 30th of April. They will be reconsidered as soon as it is safe to do so.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the reason the charge is made is with the object of keeping a great number of poor people out of Hampton Court, and for no other purpose?
  Mr. BENN: Oh, no. The first Commissioner desires to throw the Palace open free as soon as possible. The charge of a shilling is to defray the cost of the extra police.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Would it not be possible for the First Commissioner to consider the opening of the Palace from three o'clock on Saturdays free and charging a shilling on other days?
  Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir. I will bring that under the notice of my Noble Friend the First Commissioner.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL TREATMENT BY NON-QUALIFIED PERSONS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether he has received a resolution passed by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland on 19th April expressing regret that insured persons who make their own arrangements for medical benefit may obtain treatment from non-qualified persons, and deploring that recognition should be given and provision made for the payment of public money to persons who have no legal qualification to practise and concerning whose medical knowledge there exists no sort of guarantee; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend's attention has already been drawn to the resolution in question, which appears to be based on a misapprehension as to the scope of the Regulations alluded to. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 6th March to the hon. Member for South Somerset.

    INCREASED GRANT (SMALL INSURANCE COMMITTEES).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether he will expedite the decision of the Insurance Commissioners on the question of an increased grant for administration for the smaller insurance committees so that such committees may know before Whitsuntide what their prospects are?
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the inadequacy of the incomes available to sundry insurance committees of counties and burghs in Scotland has been brought to his notice, and in particular the inadequacy of the available income, about £41:3, of the county of Roxburgh Insurance Committee to meet an actual administrative expenditure in 1913 of £564 2s. 5d.
    10
    and an estimated expenditure in 1914 of £662; and whether he will consider the expediency of increasing the income of that committee by any means in his power?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend has received a deputation at which the position of the insurance committees referred to was fully explained to him. A decision as to the steps to be taken to deal with the matter will be made as soon as possible.

    OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether arrangements have been made by any insurance committees or other public bodies charged with any part of the administration of the National Insurance Act to pay to the members serving on such committees a sum of money to reimburse them for out-of-pocket expenses and subsistence allowance while so engaged?
    Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Gainsborough Division on the 22nd April.

    INSURED PERSONS.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the Secretary to the Treasury what steps are taken in England, Wales, and Scotland, respectively, to secure that names of insured persons who have died, or ceased to be insured, or have moved from an area in which they were formerly insured are taken off the list, of the panel doctor whom they had selected, or to whom they had been assigned, and whether the arrangements made for this purpose are working satisfactorily; whether there is any reason to believe that some doctors have been paid on account of insured persons in respect of whom they were not entitled to be paid; and what instructions, if any, have been given to insurance committees to prevent the possibility of a panel doctor being paid in respect of an insured person for whom he is not entitled to make a claim?
    Mr. BENN: Arrangements were origin ally made for the notification by approved societies to insurance committees of the deaths, lapses from insurance, and removals of their members. As regards removals, a new system has been instituted which enables their notification by societies to be dispensed with. As regards deaths and lapses, the procedure is being

    11
    revised in connection with the new system, and as a result of the experience gained. Cases may have occurred in which, notwithstanding the advice of the Commissioners, advances have been made to practitioners out of proportion to the amount due to them, but any such overpayments would, of course, be adjusted on the final settlement.
    Mr. DENNISS: Has the hon. Member not already estimated the number of doctors who have in the past been paid twice or three times over the amount in the estimate?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir.

    MEDICAL FUND.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the Secretary to the Treasury when the Commissioners expect to be in a position to inform insurance committees in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, of the amount of the medical fund at their disposal, in order that they may be in a position to make a settlement with their doctors and chemists for the year ending on 12th January last?
    Mr. BENN: The necessary accounting operations are now in progress, and will shortly be completed.
    Mr. DENNISS: Has any protest been made to the insurance committees or the medical committees about the delay—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must hand in that question.

    LIFE ASSURANCE AGENTS.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the pay of most of the life assurance agents under the National Insurance Act is now 1s. 2d. per member per annum; whether he is aware that some societies pay more; whether he is aware that this pay works out at about 3d. per hour for the agent on the average; and, seeing that the only method those men have of obtaining more equitable terms is by the direct action of the strike, whether he will now take their case into favourable consideration?
    Mr. BENN: As I have frequently stated the terms on which officials and agents of societies are employed must be settled between the parties concerned, and they are not reported to the Commissioners, who have no power to interfere.

    EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to further extend beyond 6th July, 1914, the period during which no reduction of benefits on account of arrears is made to employed contributors; and, if not, whether he can state when the Scottish Insurance Commissioners will issue regulations informing insured persons what future penalties for arrears they may be now incurring?
    Mr. BENN: The Regulations to which the hon. Member refers are in the printer's hands. They allow ample time for paying up arrears of contributions, and provide that no penalty for non-payment shall take effect before November next.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Before the next question is asked may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is a buzzing noise in the House, and some of us cannot hear at all?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have made inquiries about it. I thought it was some new experiment being made by the Ventilation Committee.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of associations with which arrangements have been made under Section 105 of the National Insurance Act; the approximate number of members of such associations; the amount of unemployment benefit paid by such associations to their members in the year ending January last; and the amount repaid to such associations out of the unemployment fund for the same period?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Arrangements have been made under Section 105 of the National Insurance Act with 110 associations. Of these, five associations have since terminated the arrangements. The approximate membership of the remaining 105 associations, according to the latest figures in the possession of the Board of Trade, is 733,164, of whom 539,739 are compulsorily insured under Part II. of the Act. The amount paid by such associations to their members in the insured trades, whilst unemployed for the three quarters ended September, 1913, was

    13
    £171,277. The corresponding amount for the last quarter cannot be precisely stated, but the total payment for the year may be estimated at between £230,000 and £235,000. The amount repayable to such associations out of the Unemployment Fund for the year 1913 is estimated at £117,000, of which £111,684 has already been paid.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of associations with which arrangements have been made under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act; the approximate number of members of such Associations; the amount of unemployment benefit paid by such associations to their members, in the year ending January last; and the amount repaid to such associations for the same period out of moneys provided by Parliament?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The number of associations which have been held by the Board of Trade to satisfy the conditions required for a repayment under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act is 348. Of these, five associations have since withdrawn their claims. The approximate membership of the remaining 313 associations is 1,200,000. The approximate amount of unemployment benefit paid by the associations during the year 1913 was £523,000, and the amount repayable to the associations under Section 106, out of moneys provided by Parliament, is estimated at about £56,000. Exact figures cannot yet be given as a number of claims are still outstanding.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Could the hon. Gentleman say when the account for the last year will be completed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot say exactly.

    WEEKLY CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether be can give any approximate estimate of the number of insured persons who had less than 39 and 26 weekly contributions to their credit during the year ending January, 1913, or who for any other period bad a proportionate number of contributions?
    Mr. BENN: Although the cards are in the hands of the Commissioners no such calculation as the hon. Member asks for has been made.

    RESERVE VALUES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the claims for reserve values, in respect of members entering before 12th January, 1913, have yet been agreed to and finally settled with all the approved societies; and, if not, when it is expected that the reserve values will be credited?
    Mr. BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but it is hoped that the relief afforded to approved societies by the introduction of the half-yearly contribution card will enable them to proceed rapidly with their reserve value claims.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: When does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the reserve value claims for January, 1913, are going to be settled?
    Mr. BENN: It depends upon when societies send them in.

    Herring Trawling.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now give any indication as to when the Report of the Interdepartmental Commission on Herring Trawling and other fishery matters, which has been so long-delayed, will be promulgated?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): Special and extensive investigations have been made by the Departments concerned in fishery matters, the results of which are now, I understand, being tabulated by the Board of Agriculture and by the Fishery Board for Scotland. It is therefore impossible at present to fix a date for the promulgation of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Fisheries. I regret the delay that has occurred in issuing a Report, but I have myself been waiting for this information, which is very complicated, as well as important?

  POST OFFICE.

    LETTERS OPENED IN TRANSIT.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any complaints of letters being received by their owners after having been opened while in transit by an expert process, and the contents read and subsequently replaced; whether he is aware that the majority of such letters are those

    15
    addressed to officers who are serving in either the Army or Navy, or letters that happen to be written to private individuals on Admiralty or War Office notepaper; and will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to safeguarding the private correspondence of the classes alluded to?
    Captain NORTON: I have no knowledge of any such complaints. If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of the cases referred to, I will have inquiry made and acquaint him with the result.
    Mr. NEWMAN: May I send the hon. Member a letter which has been opened in the way I have described?
    Captain NORTON: If you please.

    SUB-ENGINEERS (CERTIFICATES).
    Mr. WARDasked the Postmaster-General in what manner the second-class engineer's certificate granted by the Civil Service Commissioners to university men is superior to the second-class certificate granted by that body to the ordinary Post Office engineers; and what justification is there for inferring that the men already in the service, who had already passed the Civil Service examination imposed upon them, would not have passed the test imposed upon the university men had they been called upon to do so?
    Captain NORTON: The "ordinary Post Office engineers" referred to are presumably the sub-engineers who passed the examination for admission to the former second class of engineers. That examination was merely qualifying and not competitive, and was not of the same character as that for the new class of assistant engineers for which a higher standard of qualifications was required. It was open to the redundant sub-engineers and second-class engineers to compete at the examination for assistant engineers, and the age limit was specially waived in their favour; but they did not avail themselves of the opportunity.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact that my hon. Friend told us recently that the system of recruiting from the university had to be discontinued because he did not get the right kind of men?
    Captain NORTON: Yes, Sir. What I had in mind then was the class of candidates we got prior to 1907. Since then we have altered the scheme, and the recruits have been generally satisfactory.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether it has now been arranged to extend telephone facilities to Ballinluig, Perthshire; (2) whether it has been arranged to have a telephone call office without outside subscribers at Killin; and (3) whether a request has been received from St. Fillans for telephone facilities; and what is the reply of the postal authorities?
    Captain NORTON: The provision of telephone facilities at Ballinluig, Perthshire, is still under consideration. A call office at Killin would not be justified except in connection with an exchange, for which adequate support is not yet forthcoming. I have not received any application for telephone facilities at St. Fillans, but I will have inquiry made on the subject.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Does the hon. and gallant Member not realise that these are comparatively large communities for a country district, and could it be arranged that the telegraphs might be worked with the telephone system?
    Captain NORTON: That is possible, and I will make inquiries and let the Noble Lord know.

    LONDON POSTAL SERVICE.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether the same wages for overseers, telegraphists, sorters, and porters obtain throughout the London, postal service; whether, in the case of postmen, the wages vary according to the district in which they are employed; and if so, will he state how long such distinction has been in force and the reason for it?
    Captain NORTON: The reply to the hon. Member's questions is in the affirmative. With comparatively few exceptions, however, these classes are employed in the centre of London where the highest scale of pay for postmen is in force. Postmen employed in the districts where lower scales of pay obtain are generally able to live within easy walking distance of their offices and their work is of a somewhat simpler character. Differentiation in the pay of postmen on these grounds has been in force for many years.

    POST OFFICE VANS (DAMAGE TO HIGHWAYS).
    Lord A. THYNNEasked the Postmaster-General whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the extraordinary expenses which have been incurred by local authorities in repairing highways by reason of the damage caused by the excessive weight of the Post Office vans used by, or in consequence of the orders of, the Postmaster-General; and whether his Department have considered the desirability of entering into an agreement with the local authorities concerned for the payment of a composition in respect of such weight or extraordinary traffic, as contemplated by Section 23 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878?
    Captain NORTON: I am not aware of any recent or specific representation from any local authority on this subject, nor am I aware of any extraordinary expense such as is contemplated by the Act quoted having been incurred through mail vans. I am further advised that the Act quoted does not bind the Crown, so that in no circumstances could a situation arise such as is contemplated by the Noble Lord.
    Lord A. THYNNE: Do I understand that the Crown is in a different position to that of the ordinary private contractor in regard to this liability?
    Captain NORTON: Yes, Sir, that is so, and this question is one for the Road Board.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the hon. Member mean to say that the Crown are going to shelter themselves behind this privilege in order to avoid a fair contribution towards the expenses of the roads?
    Captain NORTON: Yes, Sir, I think that will be so. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is thoroughly Radical!"]

    GLENFARNE SUB-POSTMASTER.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General if any inquiry has been made as regards the allegation that the Protestant sub-postmaster of Glen-fame, county Leitrim, resigned that appointment in consequence of his employer having raised his salary to induce hint to do so; if so, will he state the result of such inquiry; if he was aware, before making a fresh appointment, that the local branches of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and of the United Irish League had passed resolutions of protest against
    18
    the original appointment; and if he will state the name of the present holder of the office and his previous occupation?
    Captain NORTON: I am having further inquiry made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for North Leitrim intimated that he was responsible or that the credit was due to him for a Catholic having been appointed?
    Captain NORTON: I have told the hon. Member already that I am making a further inquiry, and I will communicate with him.
    Mr. F. E. MEEHAN: I beg to deny the hon. Member's statement. Is the hon. Member aware that his question is one of" the products of the imagination of Mr. Rosenbaum?

    Children Waiting (Bakers' Shops and Restaurants).
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that little children, sometimes as young as five or six years of age, are systematically sent by their parents to wait in the early hours of the morning at bakers' shops and restaurants in London to collect scraps of food, and that sometimes the waiting begins as early as two o'clock in the morning and continues until breakfast time; and if he can do "anything to prevent this cruelty to children or to cause special inquiries to be made with regard to the parents of every child found waiting in the manner described, with a view to stopping the practice?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): It is the case that children are often sent to shops in London, in the morning, to receive food, but I am informed that they do not generally attend before five to 6.30. Even if I had power to do so it would be a serious matter to interfere with an arrangement which enables very poor persons to procure a supply of good food at a nominal cost unless there were clear evidence of injury to their health.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one district in London the traders on their own initiative made a change which, while it does not prevent the children waiting for many

    19
    hours, does prevent them arriving before eight o'clock in the morning; and can the right hon. Gentleman do something to stimulate a similar reform?
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret to say that I have no power to do that.

    Mental Deficiency Act.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home; Secretary whether, by the new Regulations issued in connection with the Mental Deficiency Act, local authorities are called on to ascertain not only the names of all defectives subject to be dealt with, but also information as to their mode of living and the care which exists or is needed in each case, and details as to their parentage and the age and mode of life of such parents; and, if so, how does this accord with his assurance that there, will be no black list prepared?
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will look at Section 30 he will see that the Regulations do not go beyond the requirements laid down in the Act. It has probably escaped my hon. Friend's notice that the Regulations only relate to defectives subject to be dealt with under Section 2 (1) (b). I have strictly adhered to my promise that no general list should be kept of defectives other than those subject to be dealt with under Section 2 (1) (b).
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Regulation, as interpreted by a writer in the "Westminster Gazette," goes so far as to make complete black lists of all defectives, whether they come within the Act or not, and may I ask whether it is not a fact that there is no authority whatever in the Act to inquire into the parents' mode of life or manner of getting their living, and that these have been imported into the Regulations?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not able to say what the writer in the "Westminster Gazette" has said about the Act; but the Regulations speak for themselves. If my hon. Friend will look at the Act, he will see, that the Regulations conform exactly with the provisions of Section 30.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I have put down a petition against these Regulations being brought into law, and I should like to know whether we can discuss them one evening or not?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is not a matter for me.

    Boy Conductors.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary whether, before giving permission for the licensing of boy conductors, he consulted the representatives of the men's unions; and, if not, whether he will suspend his sanction to the Order until he has received representations from the men most intimately concerned?
    Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The application for the Order was made by the London County Council in the interests of safety, and it was clearly stated that the assistants would not in any case displace the licensed conductors. In answer to the second part of the question, the Order has already come into force, but in the first instance it will be tried experimentally on one or two routes, and I am prepared to consider any representations the union may make.

    Trade Dispute (Carter, Paterson and Co.).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether there is a trade dispute on with the Carter, Paterson firm and their workmen and, in consequence, the men are out making collections to support them; if the police are interfering with the collectors; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the dispute in question. The Commissioner of Police informs me that no collections made in accordance with the Regulations have been interfered with by the police. On a recent occasion it became necessary to stop certain collectors who contravened the Regulations, but the police requirements were explained to them and the collectors promised to observe them in future.

    St. George's Day.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue to local education authorities in England suggestions for the celebration in schools of St. George's day in England similar to those issued for the celebration of St. David's day in Wales?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): If I receive evidence that there is a desire among local education authorities that suggestions should be made to them on the subject I shall be glad to consider the matter, and in this event if the hon. Member has

    21
    views as to the way in which the day may he suitably celebrated I shall be glad to receive his suggestions.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do they salute the flag on St. George's Day?

    Elementary Education (Special Subject Instruction).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to offer to all local education authorities the option of a single-block Grant for special instruction as already offered to and accepted by twenty local authorities; and whether these block-Grant payments have resulted in a larger number of scholars receiving instruction in special subjects?
    Mr. PEASE: In view of the reform of the system of Grants for elementary education which is under consideration, I do not think it desirable to commit myself as regards the special subjects block Grant. It is not yet possible to say what effect the experimental introduction of the block Grant has had in the areas concerned.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of there being no provision made for any instruction in special subjects in any of the elementary schools of Doncaster, Hartlepool, Lewes, Aldershot, and other large districts, he intends to make it ob ligatory by legislation on all local authorities to provide education in these subjects?
    Mr. PEASE: I am well aware of the importance of the matter, but I must ask the hon. Member to await the announcement of the legislative proposals which are in contemplation.

    Metropolitan District Railway.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the overcrowding which occurs in the trains on the East London section of the Metropolitan District Railway between the hours of 7 and 10 a.m.; that the train which arrived at Aldgate East station at 8.27 a.m. on 30th April was overcrowded when it left Upton Park station, and that by taking up fresh passengers at every station by the time it reached Mile End it was almost impossible for anyone to enter or leave the train, and that in coach 185 the gatemen had great difficulty in entering the train
    22
    and performing their duties; that during the past five years the Member for South-West Ham has repeatedly called the attention of the Board of Trade to the serious overcrowding on this railway; that the position is becoming intensified in consequence of the increasing population of the districts served by the railway; and if he intends taking action to force the railway company to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As regards the specific case of overcrowding mentioned in the first part of this question, I am in correspondence with the railway companies concerned, and will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of their replies. With respect to the second part of the question, I am afraid I cannot add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 9th March last. The difficulties of providing an effective remedy in this matter have more than once been explained to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this overcrowding is getting most unbearable; what is going to be the result in another five years; and whether the Board of Trade could not take into consideration that something must be done in the course of a few years to remedy the complaint?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have invited any suggestions from the hon. Gentleman, but, as a matter of fact, trains are running about as frequently as they can and are as long as the platforms admit, and there, can be no reform short of some fresh facilities.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I suggest that an underground railway is the remedy?

    Trade Boards Act (Jacobs and Gee).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether at the firm of Jacobs and Gee, Burdett Road, E., the male trouser hands are out on strike because the firm desire to make overtime at home compulsory, in order to make the wages up to the minimum rates of pay laid down by the Trades Board; and whether he intends taking action under the Trade Boards Act?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of the facts alleged in the former part of my hon. Friend's question, but investigation is being made into the rates of wages paid by the firm mentioned.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Messrs. Willcox, builders, of Fareham, are at present performing a contract at Netley Hospital; whether this firm are paying a minimum rate of 5d. per hour for labourers, although the trade union rate of the district is 6½d. per hour; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Inquiry will be made into this allegation.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Lord A. THYNNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers of the naval wing of the Royal Flying Corps are granted substantive rank in the Royal Navy; and whether, on the determination of their service in the Royal Flying Corps, they will be liable to be sent oh sea service?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The conditions of service in the naval wing of the Royal Flying Corps have been the subject of prolonged consideration, and will be made public very shortly.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will that apply to officers of the Army wing who are transferred?

    H.M.S. "HIBERNIA."
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the interrogation by the master-at-arms of the crew of His Majesty's ship "Hibernia" as to their political opinions was carried out with his knowledge or sanction; and whether steps have been taken, or are proposed to be taken, to transfer the master-at-arms to another vessel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I know nothing of this, and have no intention of making any inquiry.

    CHINESE WATERS (PIRACY).
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the absence of river gunboats in Chinese waters was the indirect cause of the recent destruction near Macao of the British steamer "Tai On" by pirates; and if this arose owing to the failure of the Admiralty to build the new gunboats which were voted by Parliament for the purpose of patrolling the Chinese rivers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the absence of particulars of this incident, speculation is useless. The British patrol of the Canton Delta is believed to be sufficient for its purpose.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if the neglect to build these two river gunboats, voted by the House, must not have some effect on the piracy in these rivers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Without much fuller knowledge, I think that no one can say whether the hon Gentleman's statement is true or not.
    Mr. LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that piratical acts against British ships on this particular route have been almost of constant occurrence for many years past, and whether he could not see his way to afford some protection to British ships frequenting these waters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Navy List he will see that we employ a considerable number of ships in the Far East, and the number has not been reduced during my term of office.
    Mr. LEE: Have British ships any protection on the west river on the route between Canton and Hong Kong, where piracy has been frequent?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, so far as I am aware there are a number of gunboats employed for duty on the west river, and it is the crews of these gunboats which on mobilisation bring the battleships of the squadron up to full strength.

    Port of London (New Docks).
    LORD ALEXANDER THYNNEasked the President of the Local Government Board what steps have been taken by the Government to ensure that the large number of men employed by the Port of London Authority on the construction of new docks are housed under suitable conditions?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade to his question on this subject on 28th April. The Local Government Board have no-more power than the Board of Trade to compel housing accommodation to be specially provided for these men, but I am

    25
    causing inquiry to be made into the conditions under which they are housed.
    Lord A. THYNNE: Is it not the fact that the Government are represented on the Port of London Authority, and that the chairman of the Port Authority is nominated by the Board of Trade?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That question should be addressed to the Board of Trade.

    Newton Abbot (Outdoor Relief Regulations).
    Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he informed the relieving officer at Newton Abbot that he was not bound to carry out the lawful orders of the guardians; if so, whether he will explain why he treated in this way a body of men and women who are trying without fee or reward to do their duty to this board, to the ratepayers, and to the poor of the district; and (2) whether he is aware that the district auditor, at his audit of the accounts of the Newton Abbot Union, disallowed the sum of £5 4s. in respect of Jane Skerrett, a widow with two dependent children, which sum amounted to 4s. a week; that the Local Government Board gave as a reason for doing so that there were two sons living at home earning 15s. a week each; and that the woman, who had two small children to look after besides keeping house for the two sons, should have gone out to work, as she was only 53 years of age; will he say whether the Local Government Board informed the relieving officer that he was under no obligation to obey the orders of the guardians under Article 215 (No. 10) of the General Consolidated Order of the 24th July, 1847; and, if so, whether he will state in what respect the guardians exceeded their lawful rights?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to Question 44 is in the negative. The facts are generally as stated in the first two parts of Question 71. The third part of the question does not accurately represent the statement in the Board's letter. The district auditor made the disallowance on the grounds that there was no state of destitution requiring relief from the rates, the earnings of the family being sufficient for their support, and that the relieving officer had no authority in law to make the payment and charge it in his accounts. The Board, on appeal by the relieving
    26
    officer, confirmed the district auditor's decision. A board of guardians cannot lawfully order relief unless it is needed on account of destitution, and, on the view that the orders of the guardians for the relief in question were unlawful, the relieving officer was not bound by the regulations to give the relief ordered and could not legally charge for it in his accounts. The Board informed the relieving officer to this effect.

    Political Pensions.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been given to statements made publicly by two ex-Ministers of the Crown enjoying political pensions, in which neither pensioner denies that he is at present possessed of adequate means to maintain his social position apart from his political pension; and whether, in view of the diverse interpretations thus shown to be placed on the declaration required of political pensioners, he will consider whether a new form of declaration might be required in future?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The matter referred to is under consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he takes away these pensions, bear in mind the increased cost of living?

    House of Commons (Payment of Members).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he can see his way to introduce a Bill embodying the policy of the Government with regard to payment of Members, so that the House may have an adequate opportunity of discussing the whole question, and (2) whether he has yet made any arrangement in regard to the time to be allotted to the Vote for payment of Members of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to introduce legislation as suggested. As I have already stated, a discussion on this question can be arranged through the usual channels, but I understand that no arrangement has yet been made.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Will my right hon. Friend see that every opportunity is given to the large group of paid Members to explain why they continue to draw their salaries while feeling that they are not entitled to them?

    Farm Servants Holiday (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling existing in Scotland in favour of a statutory half-holiday for agricultural workers, the Government will give facilities for the further stages of the Farm Servants' Holiday (Scotland) Bill, recently introduced by the hon. Member for West Fife, in the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I do not see my way to give facilities for the Bill referred to. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 5th March last.
    Mr. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman decline to give facilities merely for this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My answer is intended to apply to this Session.
    Captain MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that efforts are being made to settle this question by agreement, and that the efforts have been attended with some measure of success?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and I hope they may result in success.

    Ecclesiastical Appointments.
    Mr. KINGasked whether it is the policy and practice of the Government to have regard to the Resolution passed by this House on 11th April, 1899, in making ecclesiastical appointments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. It is the practice of the Crown to require an assurance that the nominee is prepared to obey the bishop of the diocese (subject always to the provisions of Statute law) in matters of discipline and ceremonial.
    Mr. KING: Does that pledge apply also to appointments of Army and Navy chaplains, or merely to appointments to livings within the gift of the Crown?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking only of the livings in the gift of the Crown. I will inquire as to the others.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to its special applicability to the Department of the Secretary for War?

    Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether legislation will be
    28
    introduced in the present Session, and, if so, when, with a view to making it clear that builders' profits are exempt from Increment Duty under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and that such duty is only to be levied on the increment of value accruing to land from the enterprise of the community or the landowners' neighbours?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the reply given to this question by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the 19th March.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the House to understand from the word "shortly" that legislation is to be brought in during this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so, Sir.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WELLINGTON BARRACKS (DEFAULTERS' DRILL).
    Mr. J. WARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the public defaulters' drill on the barrack square at Wellington Bar racks; whether this form of punishment is still general in the Army; and whether, in the interests of recruiting for the Service, this form of punishment will be reconsidered?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware that defaulters' drill is carried out on the barrack square at Wellington Barracks. This is because no other place is available. It is, however, the general rule that this drill is to be carried out, where possible, in such a manner as not to attract public-attention.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Would not the court at the back be suitable for this purpose?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, there is no room.

    Commonwealth of Australia (Governor of Tasmania).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when the question arises of the appointment of a Governor to the Commonwealth of Australia, or to one of the component States, it is customary to consult the Australian authorities so as to ascertain whether the choice may be acceptable; and whether, if the choice should cease to be acceptable, any means exists of rescinding the appointment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The post of Governor is held at the pleasure of the Crown, and his tenure of office can be terminated at any time by the Crown.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when he comes to deal with the documents in connection with the case of the Governor of Tasmania, he will consider that, apart from the correctness or otherwise of the altitude and acts of the Governor, there is another question to be dealt with, namely, whether he will at any time insist on the retention of a Governor of the Commonwealth or of any of the component Stales when that Governor has suffered a vote of censure of either of the legislative Chambers or has become persona non grata to the Executive?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member may rest assured that all relevant circumstances will be taken into consideration when I have received the documents in connection with the Governor of Tasmania. It is impossible to give any general answer to the inquiry in the second part of the question.
    Lord A. THYNNE: Have any telegrams been exchanged between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Tasmania on this question?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. I have exchanged many private and personal telegrams, but I am awaiting an official dispatch.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in telegraphic communication with Tasmania and with Australia at large in order to keep informed of the state of feeling with regard to the question of the action of the Governor of Tasmania; whether, since the sending by mail of the documents of the case, he has had any communication either with the Governor or the Prime Minister; and, if so, whether any of these communications are of such a nature that they might be advantageously laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have been in telegraphic communication with the Governor of Tasmania on this subject, but not with the State Premier or with any other preson in Australia. The documents sent by mail have not yet reached me, and there are no Papers which can at present be published.
    Lord A. THYNNE: Did the Governor consult the Colonial Office by telegram before he took the action in question?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not prepared to say that without notice, and I am not sure whether I should be able to do it with notice.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how often, and what were the circumstances in which' the assent of the Governor has been refused to any Bill which has passed both legislative Houses in the Commonwealth of Australia or in any of the component States?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have to refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Return, No. 160, of 1912. Since the date of that Return a few Australian Bills have, for technical reasons, been reserved by the Governor-General or Governor for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, but in all these cases the Bills have subsequently received Mis Majesty's assent.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the right hon. Gentleman on how many occasions and' what were the circumstances in which decisions of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia or of any of the component States have been overridden by the respective Governors since the establishment of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I could not within the limits of an answer make any statement on the subject which might not be misleading.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has assured himself that when the documents relative to the case of the Governor of Tasmania arrive he will then be in possession of all the material facts; whether he has heard that an important communication has been withheld; and, if it be so, whether he will have the contents communicated to him by cable?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no reason to suppose that the documents now on their way home will not put me in possession of all the material facts.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is permissible for a. Governor, of the Commonwealth of Australia or of any of the States to mark confidential an official communication to the respective Prime Ministers, even when the communication may have a decisive influence on the action of the Government

    31
    and hence on the fortunes of the country; whether the Governor of Tasmania has so dealt with an official communication; whether the Governor is within his right in withholding, actively or passively, such a communication from the knowledge of the Secretary of State when his judgment in respect of the case is asked for; and, if not, whether the communication of all such documents will be demanded by him?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not prepared to answer a hypothetical question of this character. I have no information as to the alleged action of the Governor of Tasmania.

    East Africa Protectorate.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information regarding a successful engagement between a force under command of Major Soames, of the King's African Rifles, and Morehan tribesmen in Jubaland; and, if so, whether there were any casualties in the British force?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am informed by the Governor of the East Africa Protectorate that on the 8th April Major Soames encountered and defeated a party of the Ali Dera tribe. No mention is made of any casualties in the British force.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that some of the farms on the Ely estate, county Wexford, will be of little use to the occupiers without suitable dwelling-houses, will the Estates Commissioners have the dwelling-houses of these tenants inspected with a view to give grants or loans for their improvement or the erection of new ones?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As I have already informed the hon. Member, the holdings on this estate were purchased direct from the owner under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and have been vested in the purchasing tenants. The Estates Commissioners are not prepared to sanction any further advance in respect of these holdings. It is open to the purchasers if they require loans for building purposes to make application for such loans to the Commissioners of Public Works under the Land Improvement (Ireland) Acts.
    Mr. FFRENCH: Does not the Land Act of 1909 provide for loans for purchasing-dwelling-houses, and why are these poor tenants to be deprived of the benefit?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is no obligation to make a loan.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the Boyd estate, Burchells and others, county Wexford, Record E. C. 9545, has been under the consideration of the Estates Commissioners for a considerable time, he can say when they propose to issue an offer for the purchase of this estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners hope to be in a position to make an offer for the purchase of this estate within the next few months.

    Major Austen Meldon (Resident Magistrate).
    Mr. O'SHEEasked whether Major Austen Meldon has recently been appointed resident magistrate; what are his qualifications for the position; what legal training has he had; what is the date of the last appointment of a solicitor or barrister; how many vacancies have occurred since; what is the present total number of resident magistrates in Ireland; how many of them were practising barristers or solicitors before their appointment; and whether the Lord Lieutenant has received a protest against the recent appointment from the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Major James Austin Meldon was appointed resident magistrate on 21st March last. Prior to his appointment he had acted as Civil and Military Officer in Uganda administering the Civil Code, and was Chief of Police in St. Vincent and Grenada. Two barristers were appointed as resident magistrates in 1911, and there have been six vacancies since that year. There are in all sixty-five resident magistrates in Ireland, of whom twenty-two were practising barristers or solicitors at the time of their appointment, and, by arrangement, one-third of the vacancies are filled by officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The answer to the final paragraph is in the affirmative.
    Mr. O'SHEE: Is the law in Uganda the same as the law in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No; I understand there is some slight variation.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  CIVIL AND MILITARY FORCES.
  Mr. AMERYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions have teen given to officers on His Majesty's ships now off the coast of Ulster not to enter into communication with the signal stations of the Ulster Volunteers or with the civilian population generally?
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether any restrictions have been placed upon the officers of the Fleet at present stationed in Belfast Lough with reference to social engagements on shore; if so, what are those restrictions; and why have they been imposed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to give any information about the orders under which the Fourth Flotilla is now acting.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it rather an insult to the officers of the Navy to say that they cannot be trusted to dine ashore?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I do not consider it an insult at all. I think it very desirable that the necessary instructions should be given to ensure that the duties which are now being discharged should be performed with all formality and decorum.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Why are they allowed to play tennis and not allowed to have tea?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I am not prepared to give any information about the orders, nor am I prepared to enter into any discussion about them.
  Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether the written orders issued to officers of the 5th Division by General Fergusson, on the 20th March, and purporting to be issued with the authority of the War Office, asked officers who from conscientious or other motives felt unable to carry out their duty to say so at once, making their decision, if possible, by that evening, adding that such officers would be at once dismissed from the Service, and express-
  34
  ing the hope that very few cases would be found of officers electing to sever their connection with the Service?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the document referred to did contain such statements, but, as Sir Arthur Paget has stated, it was issued under a wrong impression.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked What steps His Majesty's Government propose to take with reference to the illegal importation of arms into Ulster and the recent coercion of the servants of the Crown?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am at present unable to add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for North Salford on Thursday last.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: How does the Chief Secretary reconcile putting Larkin in prison while the gun-runners are allowed to go free? Will not the effect in Ireland be that it will soon be recognised there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?
  Sir W. BYLES: Is the Government fully alive to the danger to responsible Government of winking at these acts? Is it not certain that any suitable measure of punishment would meet with the warm approval of the loyalists of Ulster?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All material considerations have been carefully taken into account?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has any inquiry been made why the servants of the Crown did not resist coercion?
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister whether any rule or principle is followed in determining whether a public servant is or is not too fully engaged with other business to supply information demanded in admissible questions asked by Members of the House of Commons; whether the decision on the point is within the unfettered discretion of the Parliamentary heads of Departments or of the Cabinet; and whether the immunity from supplying material for answers to Parliamentary

  35
  questions which has been extended to General Sir Arthur Paget can be extended to members of the civil and diplomatic services and officers in the Navy at any time selected by a Minister or Ministers on grounds similar to those stated in the case of General Paget?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Ministers responsible to Parliament, and to be determined by reference to the special circumstances of each case.
  Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the salary attached to the office of Chief of the General Staff, now held by Sir Charles Douglas, is the same as when the office was held by Sir John French?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Charles Douglas is retaining the salary which he received in his previous appointment, and which is higher than that received by his predecessor.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: On what ground is the salary higher, seeing that it is a junior office?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In my opinion, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff ought to receive at least as high a salary as any other officer in the employment of the State. With regard to the inspector-generalship, which Sir Charles Douglas has vacated, no appointment has yet been made of a successor. I am considering the reorganisation of the Department, with, I hope, the result of effecting economy in expenditure.
  Mr. LEE: Are we to understand that the salary of the Chief of the Imperial Staff has been permanently raised?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is my intention.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Prime Minister whether his refusal to answer questions in the future is intended to apply to subjects other than those connected with the forcible coercion of Ulster?
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister if he will say, in view of his refusal to answer any further questions on the subject of recent events in Ireland. whether this decision applies to events which occurred between 14th March and 23rd March, or, if not, what is the exact period with regard to which no further information is to be given?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether the refusal to answer questions on the subject of the recent Army crisis and the proposed movement of ships and troops to Ulster is to be understood' as applying to the whole of the rest of the Session?
  Sir W. BULLasked the Prime Minister whether he can cite any precedent for the Parliamentary head of a Government Department refusing in advance, in relation to demands for information which he has not seen, to answer questions put by Members of the House of Commons on matters affecting his Department in relation to public policy?
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked what precedent exists, established by any of his predecessors or by any Minister of the Crown, for his action on the 29th ultimo in announcing a general refusal to answer further questions on a matter of great public interest?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My statement was intended to apply to all matters covered by the Motion which was discussed last week. I am not aware how far there are precedents, but the circumstance of the case are exceptional, and, as far as I know, unique. I have been asked, and have answered, some 700 questions in relation to these matters, and they were discussed at length by the House for the best part of two nights. In view of the limited time allowed by our procedure for questions in regard to matters which arise from day to day, and which are often urgent and important, I think the course taken is for the general convenience of the House. I must add that I do not think that the continuance of these questions at the present moment is in the interest of the public service.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman fully realise the serious nature of the precedent which he is setting up? He has taken this course, as I understand, because in his opinion the privilege of asking questions has been abused. But is that a reason for depriving every Member of the House, even hon. Members who may have asked no questions, of the opportunity of obtaining information on points which may be entirely new and very important? Does the precedent not merely amount to this—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to review the whole matter.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: With all respect, I was only asking—and if you rule I am not entitled to do so, I will at once desist—I was only asking whether the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman is setting does not amount to this: that the Government may refuse at any time to answer inconvenient questions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Not at all. I put it entirely on the special ground of this particular case. If any new facts arise I shall be glad to answer questions in relation to them.
  Mr. AMERY: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the result of his inquiries into the question whether any officer serving at the Curragh, in addition to the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, lodged a written protest with Sir A. Paget on Saturday, 21st March, expressing their readiness in obedience to any orders that might be given to them to protect life and property in support of the civil power, but protesting against being used for active operations against Ulster?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to what I said in my speech on Wednesday last with regard to questions of this nature.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the result of his inquiries was? He promised to inquire.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Gentleman will send me a written statement—I cannot for the moment call to mind the promise—I shall be happy to give a reply.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th April? He will see his promise recorded there.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will refer to it. I do not carry it in my mind.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: In asking the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House as to the points arising in the Debate of 29th April which he declared himself as feeling unable to explain through lack of time on that occasion, may I be allowed to put the question in a slightly altered form and to give a brief personal explanation. In the Debate on Thursday last the Prime Minister said—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentle man is not in order in going into that.
  Mr. J. HOPE: I only want to omit a reference as to time, which was founded on a misapprehension, and the OFFICIAL REPORT does not bear it out. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House as to the points arising in the Debate of 29th April, which he confessedly passed over on that occasion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that I know the points to which the hon. Member is referring. If he will kindly furnish me with a statement I will consider it. I see no reason to add anything to what I said in my speech on Wednesday last.
  Mr. J. HOPE: Shall I be in order in reading the passage?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that if hon. Members entered into explanations and expositions of every ques-

  39
  tion put upon the Paper it would be almost impossible to deal with them. The hon. Member should think it out before putting it down.

  SUGGESTION STAGE.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, having regard to the fact that of the forty-eight Clauses and Schedules contained in the Government of Ireland Bill, 1912, twenty-two Clauses and all the Schedules were passed in Committee without discussion, he will, should the Government determine to allow any further discussion on the Bill by way of suggested Amendment, cause any preference to be given to suggestions that deal with such subjects as the charges on the Guarantee Fund, the powers of the Irish House of Commons and Senate, and the power of the Irish Parliament to deal with Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and extending to Ireland, which were embodied in Clauses passed under closure and without debate; and (2) whether he is aware that the House has not been hitherto given an opportunity of discussing Clauses 44, 45, 46, and 47 of the Government of Ireland Bill, which confer on the Government the power to effect by Order in Council any arrangement or adaptation that they may think fit with regard to bringing the Act into operation or with regard to the relations of the Irish and English Post Offices, to the transfer of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, to the transfer and apportionment of any property, rights, and liabilities in connection with Irish Services, and to the fixing of the appointed day for the commencement of the Act; and whether suggested Amendments dealing with such hitherto undiscussed matters will be given any priority for discussion in the event of time for the discussion of suggestions being allowed by the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can only say that, while I will give the suggestions made by the hon. Member careful consideration, I am not yet prepared to make a general statement as to procedure.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement as to the steps he has taken since 29th April to ascertain the views of Irishmen on the one side and on the other of the two great political parties in Great Britain in order to arrive at a settlement of the question of the future government of Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to make any statement at present on this subject.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the anti-Home Rule resolutions of the trade unionists of Belfast; and what attention will be given to such resolutions by His Majesty's Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The resolutions passed by certain trade unionists in Belfast on the subject of the Home Rule Bill have not escaped the attention of the Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: What attention is the Government giving to the resolutions?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a single organised trade body in Belfast which has passed any resolution?
  Mr. PRINGLE: They must have been blacklegs.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has under consideration the union of Ulster with Scotland as a solution preferable to the cutting and carving in pieces of the hitherto United Kingdom?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  OFFICERS (PERMITTED DISAPPEARANCE).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers who are permitted to disappear during a political crisis are on half or on full pay; whether they are subject to be recalled to duty and, if so, for what period of time; whether the period of disappearance counts for pension and leave; and when their status will be defined in the Army Regulations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The fact of a political crisis existing has no bearing on this question. As regards the rest of the question, I can add nothing to what I have already stated in the House. Such cases must be exceptional and each treated on its own merits, and I do not think they can be defined by Army Regulations.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is not the creation of a new status for British officers of sufficient importance to justify a question and require a reply?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have given the reply. I said that this is not a matter which may be dealt with by Army Regulations.
  Sir J. D. REES: How can this matter be settled otherwise than by Army Regulation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I said that such cases must be exceptional, and each must be dealt with on its own merits.
  Mr. J. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account the disappearing and reappearing Member?

  DRILLING IN ULSTER.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Act of Parliament, 60 Geo. III. and 1 Geo. IV., c. 1, passed to prevent the training of persons to the use of arms and to the practice of military evolutions and exercise has been in any case enforced in Belfast or other places in Ulster as regards meetings and assemblies under the direction of a general on the retired list of the Indian Army; and whether, in any instance of such a meeting or assembly, lawful authority was obtained as provided by the Statute from His Majesty or the lieutenant or two justices of the peace?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second paragraph, the hon. Member has already been informed that the authority of two justices of the peace required by the Statute referred to would not extend to drillings for an unlawful purpose.

  UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES (ULSTER).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether any and, if so, which Lord Lieutenants or their deputies or justices of the peace have countenanced by their presence and assisted or abetted unlawful meetings or assemblies in Ulster for the purpose of training or drilling or the practice of military exercises prohibited as dangerous to the peace and security of His Majesty's liege subjects and of His Government by the Act of Parliament, 60 Geo. III., c. I; and whether there are any such magistrates who have notoriously broken the law and rendered themselves liable to the penalties provided by the Statute of seven years' and two years' imprisonment, and are at present empowered, as justices of the peace, to try and acquit or condemn any subjects of His Majesty?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As the hon. Member has already been informed, certain persons in the lieutenancy of counties and justices of the peace have been present at the drillings of the Ulster Volunteers, but, as at present advised, no useful purpose would be served by publishing their names. The case of any magistrates who have notoriously broken the law in this or any other respect will receive careful consideration.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are some of those who have broken the law Members of the House of Lords?

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  Mr. F. HALLasked, in the event of a Bill being introduced and passed, as suggested by him recently, to provide cottages for labourers in Ireland, if the expenditure entailed thereby after the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill will be met out of the Imperial or the Irish Exchequer; and, if the former, by whom would the distribution of the Grants be controlled so as to ensure the impartial application to the whole of Ireland of the benefits of any rural housing scheme?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Bill would be supplemental to the Labourers' Acts of 1906 and 1911, and would extend the limit on the amount of advances that may be made to rural district councils under those

  43
  Acts. The advances are made out of the Land Purchase Fund, the control of which is reserved under the Government of Ireland Bill. The Grants in aid of the repayment of the advances are made automatically by Statute, and the amounts are not regulated by any Public Department.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the Prime Minister to say that he proposed to take the Income Tax Resolution to-day and the report of it to-morrow, and then to resume the general discussion on the Budget or some other Resolution the day after to-morrow. It has been customary in the public interest for whichever party were in opposition to concur with the Government of the day in taking any Resolution which was necessary to safeguard the Treasury on the first day of the Debate, but these have generally been the Customs Resolutions, where, if they were not passed at once, there would have been a great leakage of money. I do not wish to ask at this stage any details about Income Tax, but I want to ask the Prime Minister, if it be not necessary to safeguard the revenue, that the Income Tax Resolution should be concluded in Committee to-night, whether there is any reason why we should not continue the general discussion in Committee of Ways and Means of Income Tax to-morrow in accordance with the usual practice?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is necessary to take the Income Tax Resolution tonight in consequence of the Act which was passed last year, but I do not propose to take the Report to-morrow.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What will be the business for to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: As already arranged, I hope to take the Resolution with regard to Procedure. The Budget discussion will be resumed on Wednesday and Thursday.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the other Bills already notified?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and the Procedure Motion which stands in my name, which I think everyone is anxious to dispose of.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Will that be the first Order?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Resolved, "That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
  MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To ensure the purity of milk supplies and to regulate dairies in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]
  COMPULSORY CO-PARTNERSHIP BILL.
  "To enable the Board of Trade to compel the reconstruction of statutory and other companies and business undertakings on a co-partnership basis, and for purposes incidental thereto." Presented by Mr. O'SHEE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed, [Bill 221.]
  APPOINTMENT OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the law with regard to the appointment of Resident Magistrates in Ireland." Presented by Mr. O'SHEE; supported by Mr. Brady, Mr. Fetherston-haugh, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Horner; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)(rising at a Quarter before Four o'clock): I am afraid I must make a larger draft than usual upon the patience and indulgence of the Committee, inasmuch as I have not merely to review the normal finances of the year, but I have to submit new proposals which will involve increased expenditure. Last year was an exceptionally prosperous year. I had based my estimates of revenue on the assumption that the trade boom would surpass anything we had experienced in this country. I came to that conclusion after a most careful and painstaking investigation. I was rather severely taken to task, not merely by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) but by other hon. Members and by the Press. I was charged with making over-sanguine estimates. However, I think I am

  57
  entitled to point out that all those estimates were more than justified by the results. The trade of this country reached the highest point it has ever reached. Unemployment touched the lowest point it has ever touched in the history of this country, and it is all the more gratifying inasmuch as there was hardly any other country in the world which could put forward the same claim. Our great trade rivals suffered a good deal, notably in the latter part of the year, in their trade. I estimated for an increase in revenue of £6,023,000. As a matter of fact I received £9,441,000, an increase without any precedent in the history of the revenue of this country. I budgeted for a deficit of £315,000. I proposed to take out of the Exchequer Balances £1,000,000—and the Committee will remember that £1,500,000 had been put into the balances out of the Old Sinking Fund in order to strengthen them—for Naval contingencies, inasmuch as the money was due to underspending on the Navy. By using the £1,000,000, I anticipated a small surplus. I had Supplementary Estimates of £3,371,000 to meet, and the savings on various Departments came to £1,518,000, so that I had to face a net deficiency of £1,853,000. The increase of the revenue enabled me to pay the whole of these Supplementary Estimates, to wipe out the deficit of £815,000, and to leave a surplus of £750,000, after leaving the £1,000,000 still to strengthen the Exchequer Balances. I think that is a story which must be a source of encouragement to all those who feel any doubt as to the future of British industry.
  I should like to say one word about the taxation of the Budget of 1909. The yield last year from the new taxes imposed reached the figure of £27,215,000, which was considerably above the Estimate. But since then the increase in the national income has reached something like £140,000,000 to £150,000,000, and according to the testimony of that very distinguished statistician, Sir George Paish, the increase in the national savings since 1909 has reached the prodigious figure of £1,750,000,000. It was proposed that the taxes raised in 1909 should be allocated for the following purposes: First, the Navy; next, old age pensions, including paupers' pensions; next, the improvement of main-roads; and next, a Development Grant, notably for agricultural purposes. Then we had to make provision for the setting up and financing of Labour Exchanges, and national insurance, and, lastly, for the relief of local taxation. That was to in-
  58
  clued a national valuation for rating purposes. The revenue proved ample up to the present year for the whole, of these purposes except the last item, the carrying through of a scheme for the readjustment of local taxation, and even there about £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 has been devoted out of the taxes raised then for the purpose of relieving local councils of expenditure which otherwise would have fallen on the rates. The naval expenditure has undoubtedly greatly exceeded all anticipation. The forecast for 1909 was that the expenditure would go up to £44,000,000—it was a time of very abnormal shipbuilding—and that after the abnormal period had passed, it would revert, at any rate, to a figure of about £40,000,000. That was the basis on which the finance of 1909 was fixed, but, unfortunately, there has been an increase in shipbuilding programmes abroad. There was the Continental situation which had to be taken into account, and the anticipation which we formed then we could not realise. Otherwise I should now be in the position of making proposals for the relief of local taxation on a liberal basis without incurring the odium of having to propose any fresh taxation.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    FORECAST OF EXPENDITURE.
    I now come to the forecast, for the present year, of the expenditure. The expenditure is up, as compared with the actual expenditure of last year, by £8,492,000. The Navy is responsible for £2,717,000, and the Army for £539,000; and a number of items like mental deficiency—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Which my hon. Friend did his very best to stop; grants for tuberculosis to the local authorities, insurance, and the very substantial increase in the wages of the postal servants are responsible for the rest. As to revenue, it is very difficult—more difficult than usual, I think—to form anything like an accurate forecast. It depends, of course, upon trade prospects, and I have never found greater difficulty in forming a judgment as to what is likely to happen in the trade and industry of this country and of the world during the coming year. I have been watching it at the Board of Trade and in my present office for eight years, and I think the conditions are more baffling than usual. I have consulted a very large number of business men in all the leading centres of industry in this

    59
    country, and the impression which their replies give me is that in certain branches of industry there will be slackness, while in other branches they expect to be busier than ever—some expect to be quiet, and others expect a definite set-back; but, on the whole, after consulting the best authorities that were available, I find a definite belief that there is no serious break in the weather, and that the trade harvest this year will still be a good average crop. It would not be safe to anticipate a continuation for the present year of the trade boom of last year; but I believe that the depression will be a shallow one and will not last long; and, therefore, it would be equally fallacious to base the Budget upon anything in the nature of a general collapse in trade.

    REVENUE.
    4.0 P.M.
    When I come to the various items of revenue I shall summarise them, because I have so much ground to cover, unless the right hon. Gentleman opposite would like information upon any particular branch. In comparing the revenue of this year with the revenue of last year, I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that there are two factors which went to swell the revenue of last year quite apart from any trade expansion. Before the end of the financial year of 1912–13 there was an anticipation that there would be a reduction of the duties on certain commodities. That produced the usual results. There was a good deal of withholding of clearances from bond. Traders kept them back until they heard what the Budget proposals really were. The result was that £380,000, which ought to have been collected in 1912–13, found its way into the coffers of the Exchequer in the financial year 1913–14. That, of course, we cannot expect to have this year. On the other hand, when it was realised that there was a very considerable deficiency in the accounts this year, there were forestalments in commodities which, it was feared, at any rate, might be brought under contribution to make up the deficit. That accounts for something like £270,000. In order to compare the forecast for this year with the revenue of last year you must deduct these amounts, so as to arrive at the true revenue of the coming year. I put the true revenue of Customs and Excise last year at£74,464,000. I anticipate this year an increase on this of £536,000 under Customs and Excise.
    60
    The Customs and Excise Estimate of 1914–15 is therefore £75,000,000. I have summarised it because I have so much ground to cover, but I can easily give particulars. Estate Duties, I anticipate, will be up by £641,000, and this year will be £28,000,000. Stamps are expected to realise £9,900,000. That is an estimate that the revenue will be down by £66,000. Land Taxes and House Duty are estimated at £2,700,000; Income Tax, £45,250,000, an increase of £1,321,000; Super-tax £3,300,000, a decrease of £20,000, because there were arrears last year, and there are some though fewer, this year. Land Value Duties are estimated at £725,000, an increase of £10,000. The total estimated inland revenue is thus. £89,875,000. This makes the total tax revenue £164,875,000. I now come to the Post Office. The estimated receipts are: Postal £21,750,000, an increase of £560,000; telegraphs £3,100,000, an increase of £20,000; and telephones £6,900,000, an increase of £370,000. The total estimate for the Post Office is thus £31,750,000, an increase of £950,000. The remaining items include Crown lands £530,000, and receipts from Suez Canal shares and other-items, £1,370,000. That is a decrease of £210,000, due to Nigerian transactions. The next item is miscellaneous, £2,130,000. That is a decrease of £174,000, which is of a similar kind. This makes a total non-tax revenue of £35,780,000, bringing up the total revenue to £200,655,000, which is an increase of £2,412,000.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can you give me the return of the Mineral Rights Duties separately from the other Land Duties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the evening. I have not got it here. The total expenditure is £205,985,000. That means a deficit of £5,330,000 that has to be met. I wish that that represented the whole of the liabilities with which I am confronted. As it stands it makes taxation inevitable, and I think it very much better when taxation is inevitable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should face-all urgent liabilities in the immediate future and make a scheme of taxation that will deal with them all at the same time.

    LOCAL AND IMPERIAL FINANCE.
    There is one undertaking which certainly cannot be postponed without injury to the interests of the nation, and that is

    61
    the readjustment of the relations of local and Imperial finance. The condition of our local finance has long been a crying evil; an evil which has been admitted by all parties in this House, and which imposes grave injustice upon individuals and inflicts serious injury on the highest interests of the community. There have been most emphatic pledges given by the leaders of both parties to deal with it and deal with it immediately. The pages of that dread Parliamentary recording angel, the OFFICIAL REPORT, are full of promises of the kind. Since these pledges have been given, the evil has been accentuated from year to year. Commissions and Committees have been appointed in order to find a way out. In 1896 our predecessors appointed a very able Commission to inquire into the subject. It took five years to investigate the subject, and reported in 1901. They were unable to deal with the matter during the four and a-half years which followed, in which they were in power, and I am not criticising them for that now, but undoubtedly the Education Act, carried in 1902, aggravated and emphasised the evil very considerably. We also have given very definite pledges. There was a pledge given by the Prime Minister in 1908, which I shall read, because it indicates why it is that we have not up to the present been in a position to deal with this subject. It was on a Motion by an hon. Member of this House, demanding the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government to the relations between local and Imperial burdens. My right hon. Friend said:—
    "I will at once frankly state on behalf of the Government, that I do not intend to offer any opposition to the Motion which has been put on the Paper by my hon. Friend. I may perhaps make some reservation in my own mind, and I may as well make it also public, to the introduction of the word 'immediate.' In every political vocabulary that word is subject to a very wide construction. The hon. Member must be content with the assurance that I will give it as strict a construction as the exigencies of public life allow. Subject to that qualification I see no objection to the Resolution."
    But the latter part of that quotation is the one to which I particularly want to call attention—
    "I have sketched what, in my view and that of my colleagues, ought to be the governing lines on which the problem is to be met. I am most anxious to have an early opportunity of dealing with it, but I repeat I cannot put the matter in train for legislative solution until, first, having last year swept away the cumbrous system of assigned revenue, we next get a proper system of valuation in working order and so can do even handed justice, not only as between the Imperial Exchequer and the ratepayers of the country, but also as regards the localities."
    My Noble Friend the Leader of the House of Lords also gave a very definite pledge
    62
    in 1910. In fact, we have all given most explicit pledges to deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity. The problem is becoming more and more urgent, as those who are acquainted with local government know full well. I am not sure that we always realise the magnitude and the consequences and the pervasive influence of the powers which are entrusted to local authorities in this country, and how inadequate are the means which we have provided to enable them to cope with the gigantic functions which have been entrusted to them. They have the training of the young, which is developing into a guardianship over their health and physical conditions as well as education. They have to look after the destitute and feeble-minded. They have the maintenance of law and order, the prevention and cure of disease, the protection of not merely life and property, but of the health and comfort of the community. They have to look after the dwelling-houses of the people, the water supply and lighting, open spaces, roads and tramways, and we are constantly in this House entrusting new duties to them. There has hardly been a year for the last forty years that successive Parliaments have not imposed new functions of an onerous and costly character upon the local authorities to discharge, and very rarely with any provision for assistance to meet the financial liabilities. And all parties were equally responsible here. We think we have done our duty in this House the moment we pass a beneficent measure and hand over the responsibility of administering it to the local authority. The credit is ours and the burden is theirs, and we take no further thought of the matter; and we are surprised when we discover that many of our precious Statutes are really dead letters.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought that the hon. Baronet would be rather pleased at that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am pleased.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are all aware of the large number of circulars on this matter which are littering the waste-paper baskets of city and town halls. The point is, that because the burden has been cast on other shoulders and the Imperial Parliament has not made provision to take up any share of it, it is a very serious matter, especially in some localities. In some districts where the rateable value is

    63
    low and the needs of the district are great, municipal activity is practically at a standstill, and municipal corporations cannot carry the work on any further. That is the complaint which comes from every quarter of this Kingdom. If the Local Government Board or the Board of Education were to press local authorities to do half the things which Parliament has enjoined upon them, there would be wholesale resignations in many districts. There have been threats of them in the course of the present year.

    INCREASE OF RATES.
    Parliament has practically acquiesced in the suspension of many of these laws, for the reason that the local authorities have not the means to carry them out. All those who know anything about municipal government, especially in districts densely populated and overcrowded, are aware that they are heavily rated, and will realise that I am not exaggerating in the slightest degree when I make that statement. The rates in some districts have doubled in the course of the last twenty or thirty years. West Ham rates have gone up from 5s. to 10s. 6d. since 1890; Merthyr Tydvil has gone from 5s. 3d. to 10s. 2d.; Norwich from Vs. 11d. to 10s. 7d. [An HON. MEMBER: "These are all Labour or "Socialist."] And I will give another case, Warrington, which has gone up from 5s. 5d. to 7s. 11d.—a very considerable increase. There are some Acts of Parliament which the House has been concerning itself very much about, Acts passed by both sides, which deal with certain problems, and which are practically dead letters, because of the cost.

    HOUSING.
    Take the Acts of Parliament dealing with housing. I am told by an hon. Friend of mine, who is a great authority on this subject, that five millions of the people of this country are living in slums. That has a very disastrous effect upon the future of the race. Why are these slums not cleared out? It is not that there are not plenty of Acts of Parliament; it is because the expense is prohibitive. I will give one or two illustrations. Take Glasgow, where they cleared out a slum property, but after they had put a valuation on the land the net loss came to £600,000. There was the famous Tabard Street case in London, where the loss was £389,000. The result is that the local authorities cannot face the enormous liabilities which are involved.
    Mr. CROOKS: Who had all this?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that it is not altogether a question of rates, and that there are questions of compensation and increased powers. But even when these are embodied in an Act of Parliament, there would still be a margin of loss to the municipalities to face for the first few years, at any rate, and that would involve a certain addition to the rates, especially when you consider that in every well thought-out housing scheme you must have provision for transit—taking men to and from their work. Therefore, for the first few years it is a problem for the rates. In dealing with this question it is of no use pressing the local authorities too deeply until we deal first of all with the great question of rating in the localities. When we are contemplating projects for cleansing this country from the pollution of slums, a readjustment of burdens of local taxation is an essential preliminary.
    Education is another problem. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, put before the House of Commons very clearly a scheme, which the Education Department has in mind, for readjusting the burdens of the education rate, and for making further advances on the road to an improved educational system.
    But all that, of course, involves further assistance to the local authorities. Until this pressure upon the nerve centre of local government which paralyses its activity has been relieved, it is impossible to expect that the necessary energy and enterprise would be restored to our system of local self-government. It may be suggested that this is a specially inconvenient time to deal with this question, but every Session is an inconvenient time for dealing with an inconvenient question, and the recent history of dealing with this subject shows how dangerous it is to put off attempting to solve the problem in order to wait until you know that the time will be easier and more comfortable to deal with it. The late Government had that experience. In 1896 they had their Commission, and in 1901 they had their Report. It was a very able Report by a very distinguished body of men. The late Government did not deal with it, although they were in office for four and a half years, for they had a great war on their hands at the time. When the war was over they had the financial liabilities which followed. I am not complaining at all that they did not find it convenient to introduce fresh

    65
    legislation for the purpose of dealing with local taxation. Then when we came into power we had to prepare the way for old age pensions, and when we got old age pensions we had to pay for them. Then came the conflict with the House of Lords, and now there is another conflict. If we wait to deal with this subject until the whole flood of political controversy rolls past we may wait for ever, and that is why I think that this Session is no more inconvenient, even if it is no less inconvenient, than any other Session I can see in prospect for dealing with this particular problem. Delay means that the nation is suffering incalculable damage, because the services which are essential to its life and to its progress are being starved and crippled.

    PUBLIC HEALTH.
    There is no greater injury that can be inflicted on any country than to neglect the great problem of health, of training, and nurture of the young. How are we to go about settling this problem? Merely to ladle millions into the coffers of local authorities without any conditions, and without overhauling the system of local taxation, would be a thoroughly vicious proposal; it would help little, and settle nothing. We should be just repeating the old pernicious experiments of doles, and the problem would still be with us. We have carefully surveyed the grounds in order to ascertain the defects of the present system, and how best they may be remedied without creating greater evils than those we endure at the present moment. What are the defects of the present system? Here I am basing myself very largely upon the evidence given before the Committee and the Royal Commission's reports. The first is this: That although the taxpayer and the ratepayer are identical persons, yet some contribute more than a fair share, and some considerably less than a fair share towards the burden of local taxation. This is true even when you come to the present method of dealing with local rates. Take the present method of valuing property. It is objectionable from every point of view. It works unequally, unfairly, partially. It is unsound and unfair. Some properties are valued to the full; other properties are valued at a nominal figure. Valuable land escapes contribution altogether because it is not put to the best use. You get a great house which may have cost scores and hundreds of thousands of pounds valued at a few hundreds a year, and you can get a
    66
    tradesmen's premises, which only cost a few thousands, valued at the same figure. The less a man improves his property the less he contributes; and the more a man improves his property the more he is subjected to a levy for the local rates. It is not true to say that the extent to which you improve your property is always a test of means—at any rate, not in the initial stages. It may not be a test and proof of success, but the cause of collapse. A farm with very good buildings is rated at the very highest, and if the buildings are neglected, and bad and inadequate the rates are low, and the good landlord is penalised. The landlord who puts land out of cultivation for sport has his rates cut down. The landlord who converts poor soil into good has his rates put up. That is a perfectly indefensible system of rating. Let us take the other test—the contribution in proportion of means. I take the different classes of the community upon the basis of income. The workman in the town contributes about 5 per cent. of his income to rates. The man whose dwelling is within the frontier of the Super-tax pays 1 per cent., or at the outside 2 per cent., so long as his income is not made out of large premises which, of course, would be very highly rated; but the man of private means contributes something like 1 per cent. towards the rates if he is a Supertax individual. [HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear."] I am sorry. He contributes in the proportion of 1 per cent. of what he is worth. The provincial tradesman contributes about 9 per cent. of his income to the rates, and the London tradesman contributes 13 per cent. I could give a few more cases.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The farmer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I put him in the same position as a ratepayer; he suffers about the same. The reason why I did not want to take his case separately, is that there may be a dispute as to whether the farmer or the landowner is paying. That is why I put the case, rather, of the trader than the farmer. The reason is that the basis of taxation is too narrow. It is not that the ratepayers, taken as a whole, have not got the means to face their liabilities and to discharge the obligations imposed upon them by Acts of Parliament, but that the present method of taxation imposes the burden on too narrow a basis, and that in certain districts it is not spread fairly and evenly, which is why it irritates and creates a serious grievance.

    67
    The community could carry much more if it were thoroughly spread and could carry it with much better heart. There is another defect of the present system to which I may call attention, because I should like the Committee to realise the points that impressed themselves on the Government in order to realise why we propose certain remedies. There is great inequality now between rich and poor districts, and I have given you some illustrations. I gave some, but hon. Members opposite said, "Those are Socialist or Liberal." I gave one district that is Tory, and I could give many more. I am not at all sure that Birmingham is not one of the districts. In those districts the needs are greater, and the rateable value is lower. There are some cases in which the rates which are necessary are higher in proportion to the total rateable value, and the communities are tending to become more and more separated into rich and poor, separated more according to their station, and the means and pursuits of the people who live in them. Even the motor-car is helping to shepherd the community into separate herds and flocks. There is no doubt at ail that the tendency of modern life is to leave those who are engaged in industrial pursuits to live more and more in the same area, and those who depend more upon the income of their capital to dwell outside that area. This is almost a new problem of local taxation. Those who have followed the growth of the rates in those districts will realise that this has created almost a new problem, and a very urgent problem, of local taxation.
    Then there is another question. The Imperial contributions were largely fixed, and I think by Mr. Goschen, upon a basis which did not bear proportion to the expenditure. He, I think, departed from the old principle that the expenditure should bear some reference to the cost of the Service. He, I think, initiated the system of assigned revenues. The result is that the contributions from the Exchequer are becoming less and less in proportion to the magnitude of the expenditure in the local areas, in education, in roads, in police, and, in the case of public health, there is practically no contribution at all. The next grievance is a grievance that was created by the Agricultural Rates Act. I see it suggested that we opposed that Act. I did not oppose it myself so much as a contribution made by the Exchequer, but because it was the Very worst method in my judgment of
    68
    doing it. It created a rate difficulty of its own, and I am not sure that it was not as well described by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who gave evidence before the Committee, as by anybody. It would have been all right if the rates had not gone up. If the rates had gone down, as I dare say that hon. Gentleman had very good right to anticipate at that time, it would have been a very good bargain for the rural communities. But the rates, unfortunately, have gone up. He is not responsible for that, and, on the contrary, I think he opposed most of those expenditures which have landed us in heavy rates. But, at any rate, the result has been this—that when you come to the increased rates, you first of all have to bear in mind the contribution from the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Chair!" and "It is very difficult to hear you!"] The contribution from the Imperial Exchequer is a fixed one, so that when the rates go up, the result is that those who are not engaged in agricultural pursuits have not only to bear their own share, but they have to bear half the share which the farmers would have borne before the Act. If the contribution had gone up in proportion to the rates, then that would have been all right, but, unfortunately, that was not the principle upon which it was fixed, and the result is that it has created a grievance of its own in the rural districts.

    BASIS OF LOCAL TAXATION.
    Having examined these statements, we have come to the conclusion that they are justified by the facts and call for redress, and immediate redress. We do not propose to adopt the whole of the Reports of those Committees. We have exercised our judgment upon them. In some respects we propose to adopt the Report of the Minority, and in others the Report of the Majority, but we intend to proceed with the consideration of the problem of local taxation upon that foundation and recognising that we are doing our best to redress all these grievances alike. To attempt to deal with one or more without at the same time grappling with the others, might very well create greater evils than those we have gone out to redress.
    What are the main principles upon which we intend to proceed in endeavouring to redress existing anomalies, and to relieve the municipalities from their present desperate plight? We have come to the conclusion that further aid, and sub-

    69
    stantial aid, from the Exchequer was inevitable and imperative to save the municipalities from bankruptcy. We must spread the area of contribution, and, above all, ease certain changes which we propose to make in local taxation. We consider mere subsidies, however liberal in themselves, unless accompanied by certain definite and urgent safeguards and conditions, would be indefensible and pernicious. In the first place, as an essential part of a scheme for further State aid, we are of opinion that a national system of valuation for local taxation must be set up—a system which is fair and more equitable and more impartial between classes and localities and persons than the present. We propose that this valuation should be the valuation of the real value of the property, separating the sites from the improvements; and, to prevent any misconception, let me say there is no intention to transfer the whole burden from the composite subject to the site. But we do intend that the taxation of site value shall henceforth form an integral part of the system of local taxation. That was what I meant by broadening the basis of taxation. I was very glad to hear that cheered by hon. Members opposite. Last year in the discussion, I think, on the Finance Bill, I announced the intention of the Government of adapting the valuation of the Finance Act of 1909–10 for the purpose of local taxation, and I pointed out then that it would have the advantage of being a valuation free from local and personal bias. That does not mean that we eliminate the locality out of the preparation of the valuation.
    It has the advantage of obtaining the capital value of the whole subject, separating sites and improvements, and also the advantage of getting the real annual value as well as the capital value, so that it will be adapted to the present method of taxation upon the annual value of the composite subject, as well as taxation upon the basis of the capital value of the site. It would not be a very considerable task to adapt the present valuation to a system of local taxation. The machinery has been set up, the staff has been organised; a very able staff in every centre. The vast majority of the hereditaments of this country have already been surveyed and inspected, all the necessary information with regard to them has been collected, and boundaries have been ascertained for the first time. The annual
    70
    values and the total values have been assessed, and in urban sites the value of the improvements has been ascertained. It will be necessary with regard to agricultural land to ascertain the value of the agricultural improvements, as otherwise it would be unfair to the agricultural interests. And, after this is completed, it will be a more equitable valuation really than any that is now existing in this country. It is proposed that the additional relief which will go to the ratepayer as the result of the Grants we propose, should go in reduction of the rates upon the improvements. I will take a very simple illustration of what I mean. It means that the more the improvements upon the land the greater the relief, and the less improvement upon the land the less the relief. I will take three very simple cases of an annual value of £50 per year each. In one case the land value is £10, and the improvements are worth £40. In the second case the land value is £25, and the improvements £25; and in the third case the land value is £50, and no improvement. Let us assume that the reduction which we propose would be equal to a 1s. rate on improvements; what would be the result in those three cases? The first case would receive a relief of £2 off the rates, because the improvements were £40.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does that mean all improvements that have ever been made, or improvements after the passing of this Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, no!—it is the improvements which have been made upon the property, and certainly everything but the site; and in a farm it would include, not merely buildings, but drainage and everything that has been done to bring the land to cultivation.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask for how long back?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope it will not be necessary to go into that. But I must say that the interruption of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pretyman) is a very important one, and I am glad he elicited the answer I have given. We have some very remarkable examples. Landowners have been good enough to assist us by allowing us to make a valuation of their estates on this basis, and it shows that the proportion of improvements upon agricultural land is extraordinarily high. It also shows—and I think this is very important—that there

    71
    are cases where landowners, sometimes, perhaps, from lack of capital, and sometimes for other purposes which ought not to be encouraged, have completely neglected the land and have not spent money upon it. The relief that they will get will be very small; but, taking the landowners who spend very heavily upon the land, the relief will be very substantial. That is the advantage, I think, of this system, under which you give the relief to the landowner in proportion to the amount of money he has spent upon his property.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: Is it intended to include reclamation of land, and things of that kind, upon which millions have been spent?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reclamation of land is an improvement, of course—an enormous improvement.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: That is all included?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes, subject, of course, to some question of time limit, otherwise we might go back to the time of the Romans. But I was giving three cases. In the first case, where the improvements are high, representing £40 out of £50, the relief on the shilling basis would be £2. In the second case, where the improvements on the land are of equal value, the relief would be 25s. In the third case, where there are no improvements, not a penny of relief would be given. This will be a guarantee that the relief will not go to the owner of the site as such. But where the owner of the site has spent money upon it he will get relief. In fact, it represents a percentage of deduction upon improvements. It is more or less the system which is working uncommonly well in British Columbia, where, I believe, there is a deduction in respect of improvements.
    Now I come to the next principle: we mean to distribute the relief in such a way as to give the greatest proportion of help to the most hardly-pressed areas—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can hear a cheer from a hard-pressed area. The greatest proportion of help will be given to the most hard-pressed areas where the services are heavy and the rateable value is low. Not merely the poorer districts, but the districts which have shown the greatest public spirit in carrying out their municipal duties will receive the largest
    72
    share of the relief. The fourth principle is that instead of being fixed Grants, the Grants must bear a direct relation to the expenditure. The present system of assigned revenues will be abolished—and that, of course, will include the Agricultural Rates Grant. But that does not restore the old basis of assessment of farms; the farmer will still pay upon the basis of half of, I think it is, the poor rate. The last and most important stipulation is that the central Government will insist on an efficient service as a condition of the receipt of these Grants.

    NEW GRANTS.
    Now I come to the new Grants. Some of them will be given in relief of rates and some as a direct encouragement of special services. The first amendment of the present system will be the abolition of the assigned revenues, whereby certain revenues are allocated to the local authorities in lieu of contributions in proportion to the expenditure, which was the old system. I think that Mr. Goschen supposed that the normal growth of these revenues would keep pace with the expenditure. It has done nothing of the kind. The percentage of Grants in most of the services has gone down year by year. The prediction has been completely falsified. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) and Mr. Goschen had both anticipated that on the whole the rates had arrived at their climax, and would decline; but instead of that, the increase has been enormous. The Committee might care to have one or two figures. Take the poor rate. In 1891, the poor rate was £6,500,000; the Government subvention was £1,600,000—that is, less than one-fourth. I am speaking of England and Wales. In 1912–13, the total was £12,000,000, and the Government subsidy something over £2,000,000—that is, about one-sixth. The other main increases have been the education rate—which since the Act of 1902, especially in rural districts, and county areas, has leapt up; the main roads expenditure, which has doubled, and even trebled, very largely in consequence of the new methods of traction; and the cost of lunatics, which has gone up in recent years, though I am glad to reassure hon. Members the ratio of increase has abated during the last few years. The only exception we make to the abolition of assigned revenues is that we still propose to make arrangements with the local authorities for the collection of certain

    73
    Licence Duties. They have organised a staff for the purpose, and I think it would dislocate arrangements very considerably if we were to take away the collection of those revenues from them. On the other hand, we should have to organise a fresh staff. It is very much better, therefore, that certain Licence Duties, like the Dog Licence, which are very well collected by the local police, and necessarily much better collected by them than they could be by the local exciseman, should still be collected by the local authorities.
    With regard to the Poor Law, we propose to adopt the principle of the recommendation of the Kempe Committee, which has recently reported. I do not think I need trouble the House by giving the main headings of that recommendation, especially as my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will have to go in much greater detail into these things when he is introducing his Bill; but it means that in the first full year the Grant from the Exchequer will be £3,615,000. I am now giving the figures for England and Wales; I will give those for Scotland and Ireland by and by. I want to warn the Committee that this is not an additional sum. When I have given all the figures I shall have to deduct the amount of the assigned revenues. Then I come to the Police Grant. The present Grant is equal to 38 per cent. of the total expenditure in England and Wales. The percentage, I think, has gone down. We propose to recommend that one-half of the total net expenditure, including the cost of police pensions, shall be granted instead of the present subvention. That will amount to £3,400,000 for the first full year. I come to main roads. The present percentage of contribution from the Imperial Exchequer towards the cost of maintenance of main roads is about 35 per cent. We propose that roads should be divided into three classes, the Road Board, which is a perfectly impartial body between the Government and the local authorities, to undertake the classification. In the first class, which will practically be the main roads, we propose that there should be a Grant from the Imperial Exchequer of one-half the expenditure. In the second class, we propose that the contributions from the Imperial Exchequer should be one-fourth. [An HON. MEMBER: "County roads?"] Yes, more or less. Then there is the third class, which we call district roads, which are very rarely used for main road purposes by motorists and
    74
    others. We propose that there should be no Grant in respect of those roads, but that they should be purely a county or a district charge. The total Grant in respect of the whole of the roads will be £2,480,000.
    5.0 P.M.
    Now I come to the cost of criminal prosecutions. Prior to 1888 the State paid the whole cost. There is practically no contribution now, because of the way in which the system of assigned revenues has worked. The Kempe Committee recommend that the Government should undertake one-half of the cost. That recommendation we propose to adopt. It will cost £120,000. Then, with regard to cattle diseases. The national contribution has not kept pace with the demand, and the burden on the local authorities has consequently been heavy in some cases, especially for the extirpation of swine fever. The Departmental Committee recommend that the whole expenditure in suppressing cattle disease should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and that we propose to accept. The total will amount to £71,300. I ought to say that these figures are for a full year. It does not mean the expenditure during the present year. I will give that later on. I am giving the Committee the expenditure in the first full year, because I want the Committee to see the total amount of the liabilities represented. Then there is the further expenditure in connection with the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last year in reference to mental deficiency. The counties are showing in some cases some lack of alacrity to take up the optional parts of the Bill, which in many respects are the most valuable. We propose to make a Grant in respect of these optional provisions, which will come to about £45,000. There will be a Grant of £22,500 in respect of the Shops Act and the Employment of Children Act, and in respect of the reformatories and industrial schools a Grant of £22,000. The total will be £9,785,800. Out of this total you will have to deduct the amount of the assigned revenues of £7,785,400. That leaves a balance of about two millions in respect of these branches of local expenditure. Now I come to another branch.
    Mr. CHARLES PRICE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the Scottish side of these same services?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think my hon. Friend must be patient; I am coming to Scotland by and by. I do not flatter

    75
    myself that I shall escape my responsibility for finding a portion for Scotland when there is any money going.

    SLUM AREAS.
    I come now to the question of Public Health. There is no more important branch of the public service than that which deals with the prevention and cure of disease, the promotion of national fitness, and the well-being of the population. I think Lord Beaconsfield was one of the first statesman of front rank to realise how essential the vigorous intervention of the State in this sphere was to the greatness and strength of the country. He realised that a race enfeebled by unhealthy environment was not fit to bear much longer the burden of a great Empire like ours. We are spending upon the whole of this great service throughout the whole of the United Kingdom £25,000,000 gross, and £15,000,000 net—that is to say, £15,000,000 of money are found out of the rates for the whole of the service of public health in the United Kingdom—less than one-fifth of the cost of the Army and Navy. The national contribution towards public health, this all-important service, is something like £200,000 a year; just the cost of a third-class cruiser.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Less.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend tells me—[An HON. MEMBER: "Chair!"]—I was just listening to an observation made by my right hon. Friend at my side; I do hope the hon. Member will treat me with courtesy—my right hon. Friend assures me that you could not get a third-class cruiser for that sum of money. I repeat, that £200,000 is the whole contribution from the National Exchequer towards the public health of the community. The Insurance Act has done more than any number of Commissions to locate, to define, and to classify the problems of public health. I will not say it has revealed, but it has given prominence to, one very striking fact—that an immense number of men and women, through that lack of vitality and stamina which comes from unhealthy conditions and surroundings, live lives that are a prolonged struggle against debility and disease. There is no more fertile propagator of the seeds of inefficiency and disease, of squalor and misery. How is the State affected? The State is vitally interested in the problem. There is no waste of national resources
    76
    which is comparable to this state of things. Preventible disease is the costliest of all extravagances. Much of it is due to low wages; men and women are not equipped with the necessary means to nurture themselves and their families and to provide decent accommodation. Much may be due to their own faults and weaknesses. But there is a great margin which is due to other causes with which I am dealing to-day, causes which are entrusted to the supervision, care, and control of the local authorities. Take the unhealthy and overcrowded dwellings which are such a prolific source of depressed vitality. Take the absence of sufficient provision for the cure of disease in its initial stages. Take the absence of any systematic instruction in the principles of health; the lack of supervision and nurture in the upbringing of children. I have already dwelt upon the great difficulty in regard to the slums. There are 5,000,000 of people in this country living in slum areas, and slum areas by no means cover the whole of the population that dwell in insanitary and unfit houses.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    I would like to say a word about the stamping out of tuberculosis, the most terrible plague that ever afflicted any country. Some municipalities have dealt with this problem with great public spirit. Notably that is so in the case of Liverpool and Birmingham. Some county councils in England, Scotland and Wales have shown the same spirit. I wish I could say the same thing of the municipality that ought to lead the cities of the Empire for bettering the conditions of its working people—I mean London. For reasons which I could probe, but do not intend to dwell upon, they have been dilatory, suspicious, obstructive and laggard in the attempt to stamp out tuberculosis. There is some excuse to be found in rates. We propose that in future local authorities shall be pressed to show greater activity and enterprise in grappling with all these evils that are sapping the national health and happiness. We are on the eve of proposing great changes to deal with the housing problem. The first thing is to put local authorities in a position to carry out these proposals without being crippled and handicapped by rates. The only pressure you can bring now to bear upon public authorities to deal with public health is through the obsolete, antiquated and futile methods of the mandamus. You

    77
    may as well go into action now armed with a flint axe. The idea that you could mandamus the whole of the members of a municipal corporation that is levying rates of nine, ten or eleven shillings in the pound, because they really cannot face the problem of finding another twopence or threepence, is a thing that no Local Government Board has ever been able to bring itself to the point of doing.
    The Committee has made a recommendation that, for the first time, a Grant should be given in respect of Public Health, and that that Grant should be given—granted or withheld—according to the efficiency of the whole service. The principle on which we will proceed is action. It has worked well in relation to the police and in relation to education. I am far from saying that the educational standard of this country everywhere is up to the level of what it ought to be; but I am appalled to think what it would be in many districts had it not been that the Grants depended upon some sort of efficiency. The Committee have recommended a fairly substantial Grant. In our judgment it is inadequate. It is no use giving a Grant which will not enable you to exercise the necessary hydraulic pressure to lift the weight. A Grant which is something under one penny in the pound would not lighten local authorities in many districts sufficiently to induce them to undertake the big task which we hope will be undertaken in the course of the next few years in the way of improving the health conditions of and life of the people. The Police Grant is now 38 per cent. of the expenditure. We propose to raise it to at least one-half. The Education Grant is now 46 per cent. We propose to raise it. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much?"] By and by I will tell you. Main roads now receive 35 per cent. We propose to raise the amount to 50 per cent. We propose that the Public Health Grant we recommend shall be equal to 15 per cent. of the gross expenditure and 25 per cent. of the net expenditure. I do not say that will be the basis of contribution, but that is the basis of computation in the original instance.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am very reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but would he tell the Committee what he means by the difference between gross and net expenditure?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The difference is this: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Annual Report of the Local
    78
    Government Board he will find that all sorts of undertakings like waterworks are included in the gross. Housing, for instance, is included in the gross. On one side the expenditure is £610,000 in respect of housing, but there is an income on the other side of £510,000. That shows a loss of £100,000. The same thing applies to waterworks. That is what I mean by the difference between net and gross. We propose to use this contribution as a means of pressing local authorities to deal with more spirit and boldness with all these problems which I have enumerated, and which affect the well-being of the community under their care—housing, including the clearing of slums and the provision of better accommodation; the provision of a sufficient number of hospitals, and the grappling with greater energy with tuberculosis; the provision of small holdings and allotments. We could not do so unless the Grants-in-Aid were real and substantial. I have the figures here for the whole of the United Kingdom. The total Grant for the United Kingdom will be £4,000,000 for the first full year. It will come to £1,300,000 for the first, or this, year. For England and Wales the figure is £3,200,000.

    GRANTS FOR TUBERCULOSIS, NURSING AND LABORATORIES.
    Now there are certain services which require such immediate action and stimulus that we propose specific and separate Grants; they are in the region of co-operation between insurance and local government. The first is the campaign against tuberculosis. The Committee will possibly remember that, while the Bill was passing through the House of Commons, a provision was inserted extending the tuberculosis arrangements to the dependants of insured persons. It was contemplated that the local authorities should bear half the deficiency, and that the Government should provide the other half. A good many local authorities have undertaken the work, and there is a very considerable sum this year on the Estimates for the Government's half of that expenditure. Now that substantial Public Health Grants are to be made on the condition of efficient discharge of the duties of the localities in respect of public health, more money will be required. Where the local authorities are not ready to take up the work the Grant will be made to the insurance committees, so that the dependants of insured persons shall

    79
    not suffer from any slackness of any local authority. There will be considerable Grants for that purpose.
    There is another branch of the service which is also in that region between insurance and local government. The Insurance Act has helped to make it clear that any system of doctoring is hopelessly inefficient which is not supplemented by a good system of nursing. There are voluntary associations through-cut the country doing admirable work, but they are inadequately financed. The local authorities of some districts are also doing their best. We propose to provide a substantial annual sum to help to provide and train an adequate supply of nurses.
    And here is another deficiency in our health service which has been exposed by the operations of the Insurance Act. There is no provision for the scientific diagnosis of disease. In Germany, in almost every town, and I think in France, you have pathological laboratories, which are of enormous assistance to doctors in ascertaining the real character of a disease when they are in any doubt upon the subject. There are a few boroughs in the United Kingdom where something has been done, even in London, but we propose to make a Grant for the purpose of aiding the local authorities to set up laboratories throughout the United Kingdom. The total of these services for the United Kingdom will be £750,000 in the first complete year—that includes the nurses—the three services I mentioned.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is that additional to the £4,000,000 for public health of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, these are specific services for which we are going to give special subsidies.

    EDUCATION GRANT.
    I now come to education. The general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, in his speech last year for dealing with education, have been sanctioned on the whole by the Kempe Committee, and we propose to reconstitute the Education Grant upon the principle laid down then. What are the two main principles laid down by the Kempe Committee? That there should be a distinction between the richer and the poorer areas, and between the areas that spend much on education and areas that spend little on education.
    Take Bournemouth. A penny rate in Bournemouth raises as much per child as a sixpenny rate at Walsall.
    In Hove a penny rate raises as much per child as a sevenpenny rate in Dudley.
    Take a second case! Halifax spends 126s. 2d. on the education of each child as against 61s. 10d. spent by Preston.
    Barry spends 156s. 6d. as against 53s. 10d. spent by Grantham.
    Surrey spends 103s. 5d. per child as against 67s. 11d. by Shropshire.
    We propose that the Grant should be distributed in such a way as to give the greatest measure of relief to the poorest districts and to the districts where the expenditure is highest. The increased cost of the Exchequer of this Grant will be £2,750,000 for England and Wales only.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Is that the total increase?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total increase in relief of rates. This year the Grant will be confined to the necessitous school areas to enable them to tide over their difficulties until this' Grant comes into operation. But there are certain specific services that the Government feel ought to receive special encouragement in addition to this Grant. They are services dealing with the health of the children. The teachers, the inspectors, members of education authorities, have repeatedly urged upon the Government that hundreds of thousands of children attend school daily in a condition of semi-starvation, and to attempt to teach them and keep thorn there for hours trying to teach them in that condition is not merely mockery but torture. A voluntary Act was passed, and it has been a very useful Act, and met with very considerable success. It has been computed there are 600,000 children in that condition attending school daily; 360,000 of them are receiving some measure of relief under the Act introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Thomas Lough). That was a very great work of humanity and of efficiency, and the report of the inspectors as to the difference in the physical appearance, the mental alertness, and the teachableness of these children is worth reading, and it is obvious to those who before that Act was passed had the wretchedness of teaching them and since then, have had the pleasure of teaching them. But there are still about 250,000 children who receive no relief at all under this Act, and there are

    81
    many others who receive inadequate relief. There is no provision for Saturdays or holidays, and they come back at the end of their holidays exactly the same—[HON. MEMBERS: "Worse!"]—as tired and listless as they were before. Now the State proposes henceforth, when local authorities undertake this task, the Exchequer will contribute one half the expenditure. Then there are further Grants for health work amongst children in other directions. We are already finding the money for the medical inspection and treatment of children. Then we propose there should be a Grant for physical training and open-air schools—and I am told that about one-fifth or one-sixth of the children stand in urgent need of training of that kind—for dealing with tuberculosis in children. There is an epidemic Grant to help the local authorities to close the schools without loss where there is an epidemic in the neighbourhood. There are special Grants for schools for deformed children, for the feeble-minded and crippled, and we also propose to aid the schools for mothers—the maternity centres which have sprung up in many parts of the country and which are doing most admirable work. The other Grants are for technical, secondary, and higher education—to make it more accessible to the masses of the children and to extend its sphere of influence where children show any aptitude to take advantage of it. We compare very unfavourably with Germany and the United States of America in this respect—very unfavourably. There there is adequate provision for technical training, secondary and higher training for every child who shows any special gift for taking advantage of it, and I consider that this fact is a greater menace to our trade than any arrangements of tariffs would be. We propose that there should be a very substantial Grant for this purpose, which will include the Grant for pensions for secondary school teachers, in order to attract the best men to that most important profession. There will be a Grant for special training of teachers already in schools in subjects specially appropriate to rural areas, manual instruction, cookery, physical exercise, and commercial subjects, and the total cost for the first year will be £560,000 for these Grants and £282,000 for the other Grants which I mentioned. That would be for the first full year.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Is that for England and Wales?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes. The total increase in the Education Grant for England and Wales this year will be £515,000. We only propose to deal with necessitous school areas and the feeding of school children. Next year the increase will come to £3,892,000.

    INSURANCE.
    I am sure it will be a great relief now to know that I am coming to the last item of expenditure—insurance. Experience of the work of the Insurance Act shows the direction in which financial support is needed—I made several statements on the point earlier in the year—and it shows that in spite of the abnormal work of the first year, the resources provided fully justify the actuarial estimate. I further stated that under no conditions would any subsidies be given to make up deficiencies due to mismanagement and malingering, but that there were cases where well-managed societies attracted an unusual proportion of bad lives, or were limited to classes subject to special sickness and disability, and, above all, the working of the Act revealed an appalling amount of sickness among married women, especially under certain conditions, a fact which was quite unknown before the Act. I promised that if deficiencies in these cases were due not to malingering and not to mismanagement, but to circumstances of a kind over which no society had any control, and which demand the assistance of the Government and the support of the State, it would be the business of the Government to recommend to the House of Commons some means of dealing with them. That we propose to do. I do not think it would be desirable at this stage to go into the details. The whole of the burden will not fall upon the State. The societies also must come to the rescue, and I do not think it would be desirable for me to give the general character of the proposals. I think it will be desirable before being finally settled that there should be further consultation with the societies concerned, and, in fact, with the whole of the societies. It is perfectly clear that the Government will have to make a substantial Grant in aid of these very abnormal and distressing cases as far as some of them are concerned.
    We have to deal with the deposit contributors. We have anticipated that there would be 900,000 deposit contributors, but, as a matter of fact, there are only 400,000. The rest have all joined societies, and out of the 400,000 there are comparatively few who have not joined societies because they

    83
    cannot join them—very few. There are several who, out of choice, prefer to remain outside. There are several who probably believe that in a few years they will be out of insurance because they will be above the insurance line, and they do not therefore think it worth while to join societies. The number of those who become deposit contributors because they have no other option is very small, and it is a dwindling number, but they are people who deserve a little encouragement and support from the State. And we propose to do something for certain cases of arrears of unemployment. We propose also to establish a system of medical referees who will not merely be a check upon malingering, who will not merely be a class of doctor whom doctors can call into to decide doubtful cases of illness, but they will also be consultants; there will be expert medical men who can be called in for an opinion, not only in cases of malingering, but where there is a serious case of illness, and the ordinary medical man on the panel is not quite sure and wants to get a second opinion. It is proposed to establish clinics in convenient centres to assist the panel doctors to co-operate in difficult cases. We propose to assist in the organisation of a system of health lectures such as they have in Germany, which has done a vast amount of good in spreading the principles of health among the insured population. The total of that will be £1,250,000 for insurance. That is over the whole of the United Kingdom.

    SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.
    How are Scotland and Ireland to be dealt with? I think Scotland presents a problem which is very easily solved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Home Rule!" and "That is the worst remedy!"] There is a disagreement among Scottish Members on the point, and it would not do for Welshmen to intervene. The Goschen principle of distribution as between England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, was eighty-hundredths for England and Wales, eleven-hundredths for Scotland, and nine-hundredths for Ireland. I think it is the best method of solving the problem as far as Scotland is concerned that we should adhere to that principle. You might have taken the principle of expenditure on rates; it makes very little difference. Ireland presents a much more difficult problem and is in a different position. In Ireland education and police are maintained almost exclusively out of
    84
    Imperial Grants, and you cannot give a Grant in aid of rates where rates do not exist. I think the fairest principle for Ireland would be this: That you should eliminate the amounts given in relief of rates for those two particular services, education and police, and give Ireland her Goschen proportion of the rest.

    RELIEF TO LOCAL RATES.
    This is how it will work out as far as relief of rates is concerned: Total Giants, £9,200,000 for England and Wales in a full year; £1,265,000 for Scotland; £630,000 for Ireland. Out of that the direct relief of rates will be £0,845,000, and the new services £1,250,000. That is equal to a relief of 9d. in the £ on rates. Some districts will receive considerably more than 9d., and some perhaps substantially less. I have worked out roughly the amount of relief which will be received by certain districts upon the principle which we have in our mind.
    St. Helens would receive just over 8d., and so would Dudley.
    Portsmouth would receive about 9d.
    Birmingham between 9d. and 10d.
    Norwich would receive 1s. 1.4d. in the £, and
    Walsall would receive just about the same amount. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about London?"] That is a very complicated account, and there are so many different services, and I failed to get London figures in time for to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Scottish figures? "] I have no Scottish figures. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Grimsby?"] I see my hon. Friend has an eye to business. No districts, however low-rated, will be worse, off. This year we propose that the Grants should commence on the 1st of December. That means a sum of £2,432,000 this year, but there is a condition which we submit the House of Commons ought to accept, and it is that before this Grant is distributed the legislative proposals of the Government with regard to the proposed basis of distribution, including valuation, shall have passed in time to enable the Exchequer to make the necessary arrangements for allocation in accordance with the principles I have laid down.

    TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE.
    I come to the account for this year. I simply gave the Figures for next year because it is so important that the House of Commons should realise what it is committing itself to by the figures for this year.

    85
    In this year the deficit I have already revealed amounts to £5,330,000. The new expenditure this year will come to£1, 000,000 for insurance; £586,000 for education, including Scotland and Ireland; public health and other local services, £2,432,000; an extra sum for valuation in order to begin adjusting it for purposes of local taxation, £80,000; the collection of the new taxes, £45,000; and concessions which my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General made last week to low-paid labour in the Post Office will come this year to £75,000. So I have to add £4,218,000 to the deficiency I have already disclosed. I must have a margin of £252,000, so that the total I have to find this year is £9,800,000. How is the money to be raised? I apologise to the Committee for detaining it so long, because I am sure hon. Members are most anxious to know. I think we must take into account the character of the deficiency and how it has arisen. In the first place, the bulk of it is not an increase in the annual taxation of the United Kingdom. It may be a readjustment of burdens, but a vast majority is transferred from the Imperial expenditure in relief of the local ratepayer. The amount of new service which is in it is comparatively small. It is done in order that those who are not contributing fairly under the present system shall have an opportunity of doing so for the first time. There are two ways in which they can do so. There are those whose property, under the present system of valuation, is not so assessed as to give them a chance of contributing on the basis of its real value. The new system of valuation will furnish them with that opportunity. Then there are those ratepayers who do not contribute in proportion to their means to the local expenditure. If you were to tax them in proportion to their incomes and distribute the proceeds, it might be the best way of adjusting that anomaly.

    NEW TAXATION: INCOME TAX.
    Then we come to the conclusion. The best method of equalising the burden is by means of a graduated Income Tax. In Germany the Income Tax is the most useful weapon for the purpose of assisting the local authorities in their local expenditure. In Berlin the Income Tax is 1s. 9½d. in the £; in Elberfeld it is 2s. 8½d.; in Kiel it is 3s. in the £. It is always forgotten that in this country what is equivalent to a 9d. Income Tax goes now to local purposes. About £27,000,000 goes from the Ex-
    86
    chequer, which, in Germany, is treated as purely local purposes, and that is equal to an Income Tax of 9d. Lord St. Aldwyn lent the weight of his great authority before the Kempe Committee to a suggestion that we should have a Local Income Tax, but he stated that before it was adopted it ought to be very carefully examined by experts. It has been examined by the experts, and they are unanimously of the opinion that it would not work. As a matter of fact, in Germany it works in this way. A man, whose income is made in the district and who cannot get away from it, pays, and the man who has private means, and to whom, therefore, it does not matter where he lives, here or there, escapes. He compounds with the local authority. He just says to them, "If you assess me at £15,000 I go; but, if you assess me at £3,000 I will remain." In order to have the privilege of his assistance, they keep him there at his own valuation. That means that the men who have the largest incomes are apt to flit, under those conditions. I propose, therefore, that the Income Tax should be raised. I do not propose to interfere with earned incomes up to £1,000.
    Between £1,000 and £1,500, I propose that the rate should be 10½d.
    Between £1,500 and £2,000, I propose that it should be 1s.
    Between £2,000 and £2,500, I propose that it should be 1s. 2d.
    Between £2,500 and £3,000, I propose that it should be 1s. 4d.
    [An HON. MEMBER: "Earned Incomes? "] That is on all earned incomes. I am coming to unearned incomes now. The hon. Gentleman seems to be more concerned about income that, is not earned. The present rates on unearned income and all incomes above £3,000 I propose to raise from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 4d. I think I ought to point out that when you talk about 9d. and 1s. 2d. Income Tax, there are not very many who actually pay it. For instance, when you take a person at £180, his rate is 9d., but, as a matter of fact, he is only paying 1d. A person at £400 is only paying 5d., and a person does not pay the full 9d. until he comes to £701. That is on account of abatements. The same thing applies to the 1s. 4d. rate. I propose that one deduction should be made in respect of incomes under £500. In the Budget of 1909 I proposed a deduction in respect of each child on all incomes under £500, which in the case of earned incomes amounted to 7s. 6d. a child. I propose

    87
    that allowance should be doubled for total incomes under £500, earned or unearned. I will just show how that works. A man with an earned income of £200 per year would pay 30s. Income Tax. With two children, he would, under this proposal, get a relief of 30s., and he would pay nothing.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What if he had four children?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman wants to know something about the case of a man with four children.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: And with £200 a year.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Take the case of a man with £300 a year and with four children. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about a man with four children and £200 a year?] I do hope that hon. Members will extend the courtesy which is, I think, invariably given to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not pleading for any special privilege, because I really have something to communicate. Take the case of a man earning £300 a year. His Income Tax would be £5 5s., but with four children he would receive a deduction of £3, so that his Income Tax would be £2 5s. under the new proposal. There is another deduction which I propose to make. In the Budget of 1909 there was a further extension of the principle which I think was started by Sir William Harcourt of an allowance under Schedule A in respect of repairs. A 12½ per cent. allowance was made. I proposed in the Act of 1909 that should be extended to 25 per cent. I thought it would have cost very much more than it did, as a matter of fact, cost in practice. I stated then that if there were a surplus I should assent to a proposition that the 25 per cent. should be eliminated, and a landlord should be allowed to deduct bonâ-fide and legitimate repairs and cost of maintenance to any legitimate extent, and I now propose that the 25 per cent. limit should be abolished.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Now I come to the Super-tax.
    Mr. CROOKS: Oh!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take note at once of the dismay on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich. I propose that the Super-tax limit should be lowered from £5,000 to £3,000. I propose that the first £2,500 should be exempted, and that you should charge 5d. on the next £500. The first £2,500 is exempt.

    EXAMPLES OF NEW CHARGES.
    A man with £3,000 would pay on £500. He pays 5d. on the £500, not on the £3,000.

    You charge 7d. on the next £1,000.

    9d. on the next £1,000.

    11d. on the next £1,000.

    1s. 1d. on the next £1,000.

    1s. 3d. on the next £1,000.

    And 1s. 4d. on the remainder.

    Mr. W. THORNE: Put it up a bit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will show how it actually works. It is very difficult for anyone to calculate straight away what is the meaning of a proposal of that kind, but I will give the actual additions to the normal Income Tax at each stage, or at any stage about which any hon. Member would like to inquire. First, a man with £3,001 would pay, in addition to his ordinary Income Tax, 8d. in the £. It does not look as formidable as it did when I gave the scale.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is that on the total income?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I am converting it now into what he is actually going to pay.
    A £3,500 man would pay 1.7d., in addition to his ordinary Income Tax.

    A £4,000 man would pay 2.4d.

    A £5,000 man would pay 3.7d.

    A £6,000 man would pay 4.9d.

    A £7,000 man would pay 6.1d.

    An £8,000 man would be 7.2d.

    A £9,000 man would pay 8.2d.

    And a £10,000 man would pay 8.9d.

    I can go further if anybody specially wants me.
    Mr. W. THORNE: What does the £100,000 man pay?
    Mr. F. HALL: Go up to the top price.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I want to ask what the £100,000 would pay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman would be let off with 15.3d.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these figures he has given would be the percentage on the whole incomes without regard to the exemptions?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought I had made it clear. It is the addition which the payee of Super-tax would pay to the

    89
    ordinary tax of 1s. 4d. It is in substitution of the old Super-tax. First of of all, I gave the scale. I know how difficult it is to work out a scale like that at once, and, therefore, I have worked it out in actual figures, and these are the actual rates of payment over and above the ordinary 1s. 4d. Income Tax. It is in substitution for the present Super-tax.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the maximum tax which anybody in the world may have to pay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not in the world, but in this country it would be 2s. 7.3d., and that is for an income of £100,000. The total yield of that in a full year would be £7,770,000. This year I hope to get £2,500,000 out of it, and in the first full year £4,500,000.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I take it the total yield of the new Super-tax in a full year would be £7,770,000?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And you expect £2,500,000 in the first year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, that is what I expect to get in addition to the old tax this year. I expect £2,500,000 this year, and next year £5,500,000, including arrears.

    FOREIGN INVESTMENTS.
    I come now to another proposal from which I hope to get some revenue, and that is the income that escapes taxation now owing to arrangements purposely made by men who are rich enough to leave their incomes abroad for reinvestment. In most cases these arrangements are made deliberately in order to escape subscribing to services which both parties consider essential to the well-being of the country. I do not think, therefore, they are entitled to any sympathy on that account. I think the decision of the Courts which enabled them to escape payment on this part of their income ought to be overridden by-Act of Parliament. It is expected that in a full year this will bring £1,000,000 to the Exchequer. I do not, however, anticipate getting more than £250,000 this year, and about £500,000 next year.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: By what process?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: By means of a declaration with a penalty, and by recovery when Death Duties come to be paid. Anyone who fails to declare will take a very serious risk.

    DEATH DUTIES.
    I now come to another subject, and that is the Death Duties.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with the point which he promised to deal with last Session, namely, the Income Tax on married women?
    Mr. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet stated the total amount he expects to receive from all branches of the Income Tax.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And he might perhaps have stated separately the amount in addition to the ordinary Income Tax.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will be more convenient to give those figures later on. In answer to the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, I must say that that matter is one for the Revenue Bill. Now I come to the Death Duties. I do not propose that anything shall be added to the Death Duties on estates up to £60,000 net value. At £60,000 I propose that 1 per cent. shall be added, until you reach estates of £250,000. From that point the scale will steepen until instead of a maximum of 15 per cent. you will have a maximum of 20 per cent. There are certain deductions. [An HON. MEMBER: "What will it realise?"] It will realise £3,000,000 in a full year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Additional?"] Yes. But there is one case in which I think relief should be granted, and that is one which has been pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever since the Death Duties were imposed. It is the case of quick succession. It is sometimes very hard, where a death occurs twice in the course of two, three, or four years, and the same property passes—
    Mr. W. THORNE: Not in a case like Coats'.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is hard where property does not consist of liquid assets. It would be quite impossible for me in the present year to deal with all cases, because it would cost too much. Therefore I propose to deal with cases where the property which passes cannot easily be realised or charged without breaking up either the estate or the property in some shape or form—I mean realty, stock-in-trade, machinery and goodwill. It is just as hard in the latter case as in the case of realty; in fact, it is harder, because it is easier to raise money on realty than on a business. It is a very hard case where the same business passes twice in two, three or five years. I pro-

    91
    pose in those cases where death occurs within one year of succeeding to the property to allow 50 per cent., within two years 40 per cent., within three years 30 per cent., within four years 20 per cent., and within five years 10 per cent.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated what the last concession will cost.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In a full year it will cost £185,000. I think there is another accommodation, if not relief, which could be given in the case of realty. There is a difficulty very often in finding money, especially when a property is heavily-charged and the Government are considering the possibility of allowing the payment of Death Duties on real property by mortgage on the land at Government rates of interest. We are considering proposals of that kind, but I am not prepared with them at the present moment.

    SETTLEMENT ESTATE DUTY.
    Now I come to the Settlement Estate Duty. By that duty you pay 2 per cent. in addition to the rate of duty, and you frank the estate over existing lives until the settlement comes to an end. Enjoyment of property is an enjoyment for life, and, therefore, there is no real ground for distinction between settled property and property which is not settled. The Death Duties fall just as heavily on businesses as on real property which is settled. There are many estates in this country which are not settled. There are some of very considerable importance, and there is no ground, either in reason, equity, or justice, for the distinction now made between settled property and property which is not settled. There is no reason why the privilege should exist. Therefore I propose that the whole Settlement Estate Duty should be done away with, allowance being made for money which has already been paid for frank settled property. It will produce £150,000 this year and £900,000 next year.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What about those cases in which the payment has already been made?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does the abolition of Settlement Estate Duty mean the payment of full Estate Duty upon every death whenever the property passes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly; it will pay exactly the same as if the property were not settled.

    FINAL BALANCE SHEET.
    Now I will read my figures. This is how the account stands. I have to find £9,800,000. The additional Income Tax this year, less the double relief for children, will come to £5,250,000. Foreign reinvestments will come this year to £250,000, and the Super-tax will come to £2,500,000 this year. We do not propose to commence to levy the new Death Duties except in respect of deaths after a certain date in August this year. Less the cost of the quick succession allowance, they will produce £650,000. The abolition of the Settlement Estate Duty will come to £150,000. That brings the total up to £8,800,000 this year. I have still got £1,000,000 to find. The Committee would like to hear the figures of the produce of these taxes for 1915–16. The yield of the additional taxation in that year would be—Income Tax, £6,085,000, less the deductions, £5,715,000; foreign investments we hope will produce next year £500,000; the Super-tax, £5,500,000; Death Duties, £2,115,000; the abolition of the Settlement Estate Duty, £900,000. I have got to find a million this year. When hon. Members figure out the effect upon next year of new taxation they will find, on the assumption that the present deficiency continues, that there will be a greater gap next year. Part of the gap next year I hope to bridge by the reduction in the Navy Estimates, of which my right hon. Friend made a forecast. He gave his reasons for coming to that conclusion, and they are substantial reasons, that the period of arrears and of abnormal shipbuilding will be passed; and there was also the question of the oil reserve, and one or two other points upon which he confidently based his anticipation of a substantial reduction. But still there will be a gap next year as well as this year. How is that to be filled up?

    SINKING FUND.
    We have paid in respect of the indebtedness of this country, since the present Government came into power, £104,000,000. That includes the amount which is now in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners for that purpose. By next year, unless there is a substantial reduction in the Sinking Fund, and taking Consols even at a higher price than they are now we shall have wiped out indebtedness to the extent of £114,000,000. That is quite without precedent in the history of any administration. The highest payment up to the date of the present administration—I am excluding telegraphs, telephones, and

    93
    reproducing enterprises of that description—was made by Mr. Goschen, who paid on the average £6,426,000 a year. Sir William Harcourt came next with £6,391,000; Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Childers in the eighties with £5,692,000; and Mr. Lowe with £5,531,000. This year, if there is no reduction in the amount, £9,200,000 will be set aside for the reduction of Dead Weight debt. That does not include the indebtedness in respect of the money borrowed for the Army and Navy. We are not justified in imposing fresh taxation to keep up this unprecedented rate of liquidating our debts, and we propose that this year £1,000,000 should be taken oft' the Sinking Fund, and next year a more substantial sum in order to make up the deficiency. I need hardly say to the Committee that this is not a year when you could contemplate, I am sorry to say, the reduction of taxation, but may I point out that when the present Government came into office the taxation of this country was divided equally between direct and indirect taxation. There has been a gradual and steady reduction in the percentage of the indirect taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak to the Chair."]
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak without interruption.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: If a Minister does not address the Chair, we cannot hear him.
    The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members will keep silent, they will be able to hear in all parts of the House.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There has been a steady decrease in the percentage of indirect taxation and an increase in the percentage of direct taxation, until, at the present moment, instead of their being equally divided, under the present taxes the percentage of direct taxation will be over 60 per cent., and the percentage of indirect taxation will be under 40 per cent. That is a very great change in the proportions of direct and indirect taxation. I thank the Committee for having listened to me with so much patience and indulgence. I claim that in the proposals we have put before the Committee we are honourably fulfilling pledges which have been repeatedly given by the Prime Minister and by others, and I claim more, that we are taking a decisive step forward along the road which leads to greater happiness and efficiency for the people of this
    94
    country and to greater and more enduring strength and honour for our native land.

    INCOME TAX.
    I beg to move,
    "That (a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fourteen, at the rate of one shilling and fourpence in the pound; and
    (b) The like provision shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax so charged and the annual value of property as had' effect under Section two of the Finance Act, 1913, with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and the value of property during that year; and
    (c) It is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee have listened to a very important statement from the right hon. Gentleman, but his subject was not less complicated than it was important. I think I should exercise a wise discretion if I decline to attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman at the moment when he has just sat down, and when, I must confess, that I am not able to appreciate the exact bearings of the proposals he has made. I am not, therefore, now going to offer any observations to the Committee on by far the largest part of the proposals he has made; indeed, I am only going to say a few sentences about one of them. I greatly regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman announce his intention of again having recourse to the Sinking Fund. He justified it on the ground that the Government, of which he is a Member, has reduced the National Debt by £100,000,000. But that is a very one-sided description of what they have done. It is true that they have reduced the Debt—not merely the Debt of which we have usually talked on this occasion, but the whole Debt of the country, including the Army and Navy Debt, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by that figure. But he will bear in mind that the Government which created the Army and Navy Debt created a special Sinking Fund for it, in order to preserve the effective work-

    95
    ing of both the Old and the New Sinking Fund, and that the party which he represents stoutly announced that that money ought never to have been borrowed for that purpose at all, and has never recanted that opinion. If that be so, they certainly ought not to take into account, when they are considering the amount of the New Sinking Fund, the amount which is allocated to the payment of Army and Navy Debt. I have a more serious argument than that against their proposal. You have to look, not merely at the amount of Debt they have paid off, but at the amount of relief they have given. Equally important with the amount of relief they have given is the amount of new charges which they have created. They have paid off something under £100,000,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Over.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Excluding Army' and Navy Debt. We will take it at £104,000,000 if they like. They have therefore relieved the country of charges of something under £3,000,000, but, by their old age pensions and insurance schemes alone, as they stood before the right hon. Gentleman had announced the additions he has done to-day, they had added not to the capital expenditure at a given moment, but to the annual charges of the State, a new burden of £21,000,000. That, of course, finds its correspondent in the new taxes which they have imposed. The right hon. Gentleman is now carrying the Income Tax to heights which no statesman of any party would have contemplated until very recent years in time of peace. He is, therefore, to that extent draining one of the great reservoirs to which we can have recourse in time of war. This is not the moment for making a further drain upon the other great reservoir to which we can have recourse in the time of war, namely, the Sinking Fund. I am bound to say that when Consols are standing as low as they are now it is a very profitable transaction to pay off the Debt, and we ought to make the largest use of our means for that purpose. I put in, therefore, an immediate caveat against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to take another £1,000,000 this year and something more than £1,000,000 next year from the Sinking Fund. Beyond that I do not propose to go at this moment into the Budget proposals he has outlined to the Committee. I only want to ascertain from him, in the
    96
    first place, what information he proposes to supply to the House in the form of Papers to explain the statement that he has made, and, in the second place, what our procedure is to be. The right hon. Gentleman travelled over a great deal of ground. He has adumbrated a new rating system, but he has not explained it; he has adumbrated a new valuation, but he has not explained it. He has not told us how the rates are to be apportioned between what I may call the new form of the old valuation and the new site valuation which he proposes to create. I would ask him to tell us how the House is going to be put into possession of this information. We really need, before we can intelligently discuss these proposals, a very much fuller statement of how they will be carried into effect—and, indeed, of what they are—than he has yet given us. I should like to see a full statement, which I think we shall not find when we come to read his speech, of what are exactly the new Grants he proposes, and what is their amount and what they are. I may be asking in some respects for information which I shall find in looking at the speech, but the right hon. Gentleman very seldom gave two figures running which referred to exactly the same thing, therefore it was very difficult to follow. There would be a figure for the United Kingdom followed by one for England and Wales alone, or a figure of the additional produce of the tax followed by a figure of the total produce of the tax. However, it is possible that when I come to look at the speech I shall find there some of the information I am asking for, though it escaped my attention, but I think there will be other information that we shall have to ask for.
    I should like to have a statement showing how these new Grants will work out as between different authorities, and in particular how they will affect the rural authorities of the country. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to abolish the existing Agricultural Bate Grant, I think the agricultural districts concerned may fairly ask to be informed at the earliest possible moment how it is estimated they will be affected by the withdrawal of that Grant and by the new proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made. He evidently has had this comparison in regard to certain places, because he has given us some comparative figures. Probably he has it worked out on a much more extensive scale than he thought it necessary to

    97
    do, and I hope he will give it us on the fullest scale he can. London has had a special grievance in regard to local rating, and we should like to know how it is estimated London will be affected by it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what Papers he can lay for our fuller information, and to lay them at the earliest possible moment, and to tell us, if he can this afternoon, how and at what time he expects to put the House in possession of the information in regard to local rating generally, to valuation, and to education, which he could only vaguely sketch out. I imagine it will be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman himself and to the House at large that we should all adjourn early without attempting to carry this matter further to-day, and have time to think over the statement he has made. I assume, under these circumstances, the Government will be prepared to do what is usual, and not take any further contentious business.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I agree with that, subject to one small order, Criminal Justice Administration Expenses (Committee), which is agreed. In reference to the appeal that the right hon. Gentleman has made for further information, my right hon. Friend, in consultation with myself, will consider all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, and give him all the information he can.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When shall we have, what is a very important part of the Budget, the proposals which relate to local rating—when shall we know exactly what those proposals are?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot promise to lay them before our discussion on Wednesday and Thursday, of course, but I hope we shall have them in due course.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will there be something additional before Wednesday and Thursday?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: May we also have details of the Grant for Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman said a great deal with regard to England and Wales, but gave us no details with regard to Scotland. May I ask whether he will issue a separate Paper?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry the Secretary for Scotland is not here. I am afraid I could not give that undertaking "without further consultation with him.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the principle on which the money is to be allocated to Scotland? He did not make it clear whether it would be on the basis of expenditure or not.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has certain proposals of his own in regard to Scotland. I do not want to enter into those.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would be possible to lay before the House a statement of the approximate number of persons from whom various parts of the revenue are drawn, so that it can be seen how much money comes from how many people, because though in general we are all in sympathy with the principle in which the Budget is framed, of taxing rich people heavily, it is a danger if you levy too large a part of your taxation from a very small number of people. It is a danger both in regard to the principle of no taxation without representation—of course, a very small number of people have no weight in a representative body—and it is also a danger because it makes the national revenue depend on a very narrow basis, and it is liable to sudden fluctuations.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some information showing what is the proportion of taxation paid by working-class householders, average middle-class householders, and people of independent means, and will he also with that give any figures showing what either of these classes derive as a direct receipt from the taxation. It is a very important point, because where a man pays a shilling and receives two shillings in actual receipts from the tax, that ought to be taken into consideration—I mean in the direction of old age pensions, or education, and so on.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask a question with reference to an alteration in the law which the right hon. Gentleman promised me last Session he would introduce in connection with the Income Tax levied on the joint incomes of husband and wife. He said he would deal with it on the Revenue Bill. That is precisely what he was trying to do last Session, and because he dealt with it in that way, and did not pass the proper Resolution, he was himself unable to carry

    99
    out the very amendment which he desired to effect, and I notice that the Income Tax Resolution in this case is drawn in such a way as not to make it possible to introduce such an Amendment. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that the Revenue Bill is the proper Bill on which to deal with it. It is Income Tax, and, if Income Tax is to be imposed by the Finance Bill, the House is entitled to insist that all questions dealing with Income Tax should be dealt with on that Bill. I should like to call his attention to the wording of this Resolution, and to remind him that last Session he failed to carry out his promise in this very matter, because of the form in which the Resolution had been brought.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not sure that I quite understood the right hon. Gentleman, but this was my understanding of his figures so far as relief this year to local authorities is concerned, that they are certain to get the sum of £550,000 in relief of necessitous areas under the new Education Grant?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That includes the provision of meals.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): £515,000, not £550,000.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is a fixed and certain sum independent of the passage of any new legislation. Is that so? Apart from that the £2,000,000 Grant promised to local authorities this year is entirely dependent on the passage of new legislation, particularly dependent on the passage of legislation inaugurating an entirely new system of valuation. Then I should like to know, if that is so, whether practically the whole of the new Grants, and possibly also this new necessitous new area Grant, are dependent on new legislation? I should like to ask when it is proposed to introduce that legislation, whether it will be introduced before Whitsuntide, and whether it will be pushed along by the Government, so that these local authorities will have the same chance of obtaining some relief this year to the extent at least of £2,000,000?
    Mr. LEES SMITH: Will the figures which the Chancellor is to give us include information as to what is to be done with the £1,000,000 still in the Exchequer Balances?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not merely to deal with the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel) as to which Bill this concession is to come into, but to make perfectly clear what the concession is that he is prepared to grant? When you were dealing with Income Tax at the rate of 8d. or 9d. in the £, that was an injustice to husband and wife having both earned incomes or one earned and the other unearned. When we are dealing, as we are in this Budget, with an Income and Super-tax combined of something like 2s. in the £, the hardship to a married couple becomes very much more intensified than it was a few years ago. I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, before we pass the Resolution, to make it perfectly plain what concession he is prepared to grant in respect of that question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: May I ask a question with regard to the £1,000,000 extra for national insurance? I understand, of course, that with regard to the deposit contributor new legislation will be required. Will new legislation be required for dealing with abnormal case?. and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce any Bill in regard to that shortly—this side of Whitsuntide?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: A little con fusion was caused in the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer due to the fact that in one instance he gave figures for the whole of the United Kingdom and in others for England and Wales only. I think it would not be difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us, before Wednesday, the figures for each Grant under each head of expenditure to local authorities for England and Wales and other parts, where available in the United Kingdom—in the first place, for the present year, and, in the second place, for the following year. I think there must be figures in the possession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and perhaps there would not be any objection to give them to the House. As to the other item of information, no doubt it would not be possible to give it by Wednesday, but I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman at some time would give the House tables showing the amount of relief for the rest of the United Kingdom. He has stated the amount in respect of one or two special places, and it is quite clear that a good

    101
    many calculations have been made in respect of other places as well. I am sure it would make the matter clear to everybody if he would give tables showing the estimated relief to each county and county borough and each urban and rural district.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when he is supplying information on the lines asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, he will state if the relief to rates, which is to average 9d. in the £, is based on the present assessment, and whether, if that is so, the relief will not amount to 1s. 6d., or approximately some such sum, if it is relief solely on improvements, and whether there is no relief on the land value part of the valuation? I was not quite clear whether 9d. was the total amount of relief on the improvement part or whether it was intended to cover the whole valuation.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: In view of the great number of Acts which have been passed recently, and which have so greatly increased the rates of agricultural land, will the right hon. Gentleman also remember that he received a deputation not long ago on the subject of further relief in regard to the agricultural industry? I think he gave a deputation from the Farmers' Union the greatest hopes that considerable relief would be given in that particular direction in the very near future. It was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to follow from his speech how this will be done. I have studied very carefully the recent reports of the Local Taxation Committee which has been laid on the Table, and I do not follow with any clearness at all that there is going to be any substantial relief in that respect to agricultural land. At all events, I am sure it will be a matter of great relief to the agricultural world if the right hon. Gentleman before we pass the Finance Bill, or at the earliest possible opportunity, will state how that further relief which he has promised is to be made.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what relief is to be given to Nottingham among the great centres?
    Mr. MOUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to include a Grant to small schools in rural districts? He will remember that £370,000 was proposed in the Kempe report. I wish to know whether that is included in the Grant which is to be given for education?
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the suggestion which has been made with respect to a local Income Tax has been considered by the Treasury experts and unanimously rejected. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to circulate their opinion, because it is a subject which attracts a good deal of interest on both sides of the House. There are many hon. Members in all quarters of the House who think that a local Income Tax is a possible solution of some of our difficulties. It would be a matter of great interest if we could have a statement circulated giving the opinion of the Treasury officials. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could see his way to circulate the new grading of the Death Duties. He gave us certain figures in regard to that matter, and told us that £1,000,000 would pay 20 per cent. He referred to the rapid steepening of the grade, and I think it would be useful for the House to know the details of the new grade.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There is one point of principle which I would be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would clear up before we discuss the matter again. I understand that ho is going to give some relief to local taxation, and that he proposes to raise the money by a graduated increase on the Income Tax. The Land Tax is, we believe, somewhat unfairly distributed as between the different ratepayers, but still the burden is upon land. The right hon. Gentleman is granting this relief from Income Tax, or largely from Income Tax. I rather understood from his preliminary remarks that he proposed to grant this relief by means of a direct tax upon land assessed upon site value, and that the relief would be granted somewhat in proportion to the amount of the improvement of the value in each district; but when it came to the question of raising the money, there was no indication of any proposal in that respect—certainly no indication of any proposal as regards the current year. May I ask if the proposal to meet this relief of rates out of Income Tax is merely a temporary proposal for the present year, and does he intend in the following year or in an early year to grant this relief in respect of the unfairly distributed Land Tax, and to add another Land Tax which shall be fairly distributed.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I wish to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    103

    in regard to secondary school fees. I understand that certain Grants are going to be made to local authorities towards secondary schools. I have introduced two deputations to the President of the Board of Education in regard to the fees charged for scholars attending secondary schools. In some cases they are higher than the parents can afford to pay. In West Ham the charge is £4 per annum, and in some places it is as high as £8. I wish to know whether, in the event of this Grant being given to local authorities for secondary education, he will take into consideration the fees which are charged, with the view of preventing the charging of extraordinary fees?
    Captain WILSON: In regard to necessitous school areas, I understand that £515,000 is to be granted this year. May I ask whether this is to be granted on the same principle as in previous years?
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in order to assist in the elucidation of the Income Tax and the Super-tax, he will give the House two tables showing what they amount to, first, on earned incomes, and, second, on unearned incomes? In that way it would be possible to see what the Income Tax charge on £2,000, £5,000, and £10,000 would actually be.
    Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into account, or will take into account, the fact that all the charity property in the Kingdom is exempt from Income Tax altogether? There is now £12,000,000 per annum received by the Charity Commissioners and Charity Trustees arising from landed property which is exempt from Income Tax. A great many years ago the late Mr. Gladstone made a proposal in relation to that question. Now it has become a serious matter. It would make a difference of one halfpenny in the pound upon the Income Tax to all the payers of that tax if the income from the property was the subject of assessment. It seems hardly fair that a large amount of property amounting to £500,000 a year should be exempted from Income Tax altogether.
    Mr. PETO: As a very much larger amount of the revenue is to be collected from Income Tax, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has the intention of doing what he indicated in previous years,
    104
    in the way of allowing a careful estimate to be made for wasting assets in respect of any industry? The heavier the Income Tax is, the more important it is that it should be levied on the real amount, and that there should be a proper method of accounting.
    7.0 P.M
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is impossible to get through the discussion of the Finance Bill in any year without being, confronted with many of the "hardy annuals" which always come up. I will deal with the questions which have been addressed to me from both sides of the House. Most of the hon. Members who have spoken have asked for information and returns. I will do my very best to comply with all the requests. My hon. Friend (Mr. Chiozza Money) has asked me whether I would consider the possibility of issuing certain information with respect to the Income Tax and the Super-tax. I think I shall be able to grant that request. It would help very much if hon. Members would put their requests in the form of Motions for Returns, which would give one an opportunity of considering them with one's advisers. With regard to the amount of the Grants, I say that ought to be made quite clear. Unfortunately, the only figure which I had on my notes was for the United Kingdom. The same thing applies to some of the special Grants. However, I shall take care to circulate a White Paper showing exactly what are the Grants. I shall circulate them, so far as possible, in the form in which they are desired by hon. Members who have addressed questions to me. A question was put in respect of the treatment of Scotland and Ireland. At the present moment I am not in a position to say Scotland will get a proportionate Grant. I think the hon. Member who asked the question will do well to be content with that declaration. I have gone into the matter, and I would advise my hon. Friend not to press it. I come to the question of the Irish contribution, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo wishes to get some in formation. The portion of the Irish contribution is to be paid over to the Irish Parliament for the services at their disposal. The hon. Member for Colchester asked me as to whether legislation is required in reference to insurance. Legislation will be required, I think, for dealing with all the points which I have indicated, and it will, be introduced as soon as possible.

    105
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) asked whether I could give, in reference to rural areas, a calculation similar to that which I had already given with regard to county boroughs. The difficulty in the case of rural areas is that it depends so much on the classification of the roads. I have been able to get it without much trouble in the case of the county boroughs, but have found it difficult to get figures for the rural areas, because they depend so much on the classification of the roads. I will not say it is the main burden, but it is a very important element in the burdens upon rural areas. I shall do my best to get the information asked as soon as possible. Some of the questions addressed to me are questions which relate to the Bills that are to be introduced to deal with these matters of local taxation. I am only dealing with them now in so far as they affect the finances of the year. I have given a general idea of the money that I have to provide, and the questions addressed to me would be dealt with better on other Bills than on the Finance Bill, which is dealt with by the Resolution before the Committee at present. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me a question about necessitous school areas. In some cases it will be the old basis, but in other cases it will not be. There would be some new participants in the scheme. That will add considerably to the amount. Some of the old participants will, I think, get increases in subsidy, but there will be new participants that will add considerably to the expenditure which I have to provide for necessitous school areas. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will get some information on that point. My right hon. Friend will take care to lay it on the Table or to give some information, whether by question and answer or otherwise, to the House. I cannot give it at the present moment, but I will do my best if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question. In reference to the question made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel), he seemed to think that it is not a question to be dealt with in the Revenue Bill.
    Mr. CASSEL: It could easily be dealt with in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that point. I am quite as anxious as the hon. and learned Gentleman is to have the matter settled, because I cannot afford to give the concession which has been
    106
    asked for, and am prepared to resist it on principle.
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman failed last Session to carry what he wanted.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree. I must see that that is put right this Session. I will do my best to see that the concession which I was prepared to make last year, should be incorporated in an Act of Parliament this year.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to when these new Bills embodying the now Grants will be introduced, and whether this will be done before Whitsuntide?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman must address that question to the Leader of the House. It is a question of the business arrangements of the House, over which I have no control. Perhaps he will kindly ask the Prime Minister the question.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but I would ask him to bear in mind, as his reply is directed to the rural districts alone, that my question was directed as to what is the position of agricultural land under these new proposals as compared with what it is now, and as to whether under these proposals it would derive the further relief which the right hon. Gentleman promises, of which I confess I have considerable doubts at present as far as I can follow what he said.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question which I asked as to what should be done with the £1,000,000?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The £1,500,000, as it is, is still in the Exchequer balance, and it will remain there until the day comes.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman prepare a statement showing how the Super-tax is going to act, and whether it is to be in respect of incomes received during the current year, or whether the incomes are to be calculated according to previous years? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when he introduced the Super-tax the last time the Super-tax was not calculated on the income of the current year, but in respect of the income of the previous year.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No statement will be necessary. We do not propose to make any alteration in the basis of the law. I would like, before answering the hon. Gentleman, to have a further consultation with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it proposed that this very large relief to local burdens should be made permanent out of general taxation and not out of specific taxes?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The relief is not to land but to improvements of the land. That is the whole basis of the relief. It is in order to avoid it being a relief to land that we propose to have it a relief to improvements.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the altered basis apply to the full amount? At the present time a large sum is distributed in relief to local rates.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is only in new Grants.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In reference to the new basis upon which the land is to be rated, are we to take it that the compulsory provision of the new rate—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is really asking in reference (o the Rating Bill. I have nothing to do, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that proposal. I have simply explained my financial proposals and how the money is to be applied.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are not these land proposals dependent on the Eating Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I really wish to be sure that I understand the proposals. Is it certain that the right hon. Gentle-

    108
    man's proposal towards the relief of local taxation is to be a relief granted to each individual ratepayer in proportion to the amount of his improvement?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have said so already. I repeat it now for the third, time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday next; Committee to sit again upon. Wednesday.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRA TION [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions to societies for the care of youthful offenders on probation and for similar objects, and of other expenses incurred in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to diminish the number of cases committed to prison, to amend the Law with respect to the treatment and punishment of young offenders, and otherwise to improve the administration of criminal justice."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow. (Tuesday).
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  SEAMEN'S NATIONAL INSURANCE SOCIETY.
  SEAMEN'S NATIONAL INSURANCE SOCIETY.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  TUBERCULOSIS (DOMICILIARY TREATMENT).
  TUBERCULOSIS (DOMICILIARY TREATMENT).
  COMPULSORILY INSURED PERSONS (DRAFT REGULATIONS).
  COMPULSORILY INSURED PERSONS (DRAFT REGULATIONS).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  SIR A. PAGET'S INSTRUCTIONS.
  SIR A. PAGET'S INSTRUCTIONS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ARMY ACT (MOTOR-CAR OWNERS).
  ARMY ACT (MOTOR-CAR OWNERS).
  Secondary Education (County of Wigtown).
  Secondary Education (County of Wigtown).
POST OFFICE.
  SUNDAY LATE FEE LETTERS.
  SUNDAY LATE FEE LETTERS.
  MONEYLENDERS' TOUTING CIRCULARS.
  MONEYLENDERS' TOUTING CIRCULARS.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill.
  Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill.
  Sugar Imports.
  Sugar Imports.
  Steamship "Wyneric."
  Steamship "Wyneric."
  Wireless Telegraphy (Lodge Patent).
  Wireless Telegraphy (Lodge Patent).
  Colour Vision.
  Colour Vision.
  Hyde Park (Suffragists' Water Pageant).
  Hyde Park (Suffragists' Water Pageant).