Sitting of 11 May 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Loudon County Council (Money) Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.
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 Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Butterley Company Bill [Lords].
Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills (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, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Oxford and District Tramways Bill.
Lurgan Gas and Electricity Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report
686
from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Trade Boards Act Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 9 Bill).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Norwich Electric Tramways Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Tees Valley Water Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Brentford Gas Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Ellesmere Port and Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Clydebank and District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders No. 2) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Counties of Carmarthen (urban district of Cwmamman), Monmouth (urban district of Blaenavon), Cornwall (urban district of Polperro), Pembroke (parish of St. Issells);
Boroughs of Carmarthen, Ilkeston, Swansea, and Gateshead (two);
Urban District of Ashington
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 16th April, 1914, revoking the Order for the burgh of Newmilns and Greenholm, confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland on the 31st December, 1912, so far as it relates to confectioners' shops [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.

POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county of Lancaster dividing the Ince Parliamentary Division into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
Copy presented of Memorandum on Financial Provisions of the Bill based on Revenue and Expenditure in the Financial year 1913–14 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLITICAL OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 5th May; Mr. King]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 221.]
TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
Copy presented of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1913, compared with the four preceding years. Volume I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of Balliol College, Oxford, on the 9th October, 1913, and sealed on the 29th January, 1914, amending Statute III., 16 (d) and (e). of the existing Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 220.]
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 64) Warrant, 1911. Dated 1st April, 1914 [by-Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made, the number of Patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics, between 1st October, 1913, and the 31st March, 1914 [by Act.]
SOLDIERS' EMPLOYMENT.
Return ordered "of the number of persons holding, on the. 31st day of March, 1914, (1) established, (2) unestablished, appointments as messengers, postmen, watchers, warders, park-keepers, attendants, porters, and similar situations, other than clerical appointments, in the several Government departments, showing the number of such persons who previously served in His Majesty's Regular Army and Navy and the percentage of places held by ex-Army and ex-Navy men to the other places in question."—[Colonel Yate.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Montenegro.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information from our Consul in the district regarding the fate of Hoti and Gruda; and whether he will use the good offices of His Majesty's Government to suggest to the Montenegrin Government that they should compensate those inhabitants of Hoti and Gruda whom they have driven from their homes and who have been forced to flee for safety to Scutari, or to reinstate them and rebuild their houses which the Montenegrin troops have burned and pillaged?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member of 27th April. I have no information on which I could base action such as that suggested.

  Albania.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he proposes to make any statement with regard to the reported crucifixion of Albanians captured by the Greek Epirotes?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information on the subject.

  San Salvador.
  Mr. HOAREasked whether there is any reason to believe that the recent native rising in San Salvador was due to the carrying out of the provincial order contained in dispatch No. 65, in White Paper No. 7279; and whether His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon will be instructed to call the attention of the Portuguese Government to this order signed by the Governor-General of Angola, whereby it would seem that an attempt was made by the Portuguese Governor himself to secure forced labour for private profit?
  Mr. ACLAND: The British Vice-Consul at Boma, who is now at San Salvador, has been instructed to report in connection with the case of Mr. Bowskill on all the circumstances leading up to the rising, including the question of recruitment of native labour, and I would prefer to await his report before giving any reply to this question. As regards the second part of the question the order referred to provides for the voluntary recruitment of contract labour
  690
  and not for forced labour. To what extent the decree was abused, and, if so, who was responsible for its abuse, is a question on which I must wait for the full report expected.
  Mr. HOARE: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to have the British. Vice-Consul's report?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid that is rather uncertain, as the means of communication appear to be very difficult.
  Mr. HOARE: Is it a question of weeks or months?
  Mr. ACLAND: As I do not know how difficult the means of communication are I could not give any useful estimate.

  Portuguese West Africa (Rev. J. S. Bowskill's Arrest).
  Mr. HOAREasked whether, when His Majesty's Vice-Consul Bell arrived at. San Salvador to inquire into the arrest of Mr. Bowskill, the Portugese administration surrounded His Majesty's representative and his carriers with a body of soldiers under white officers; and whether, in spite of assurances that there were no rebels in the company, the Governor retained this military demonstration around the Vice-Consul for some hours, and until the Governor's action had become notorious amongst the natives of the district?
  Mr. ACLAND: The only dispatch as yet received from Mr. Vice-Consul Bell makes no mention of such an incident, and I cannot, pending a report from him, make a statement as regards information from other sources.
  Mr. HOARE: Is there no telegraphic communication between the place at which he is and this country?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think not.

  Haiti.
  Mr. F. HALLasked if an ultimatum was recently presented to the Government of Haiti demanding payment of a large indemnity to a British subject as compensation for the destruction of his property during a recent revolution in the island; if the Haitian Government has agreed to pay compensation; if the American Government was advised before the ultimatum was presented; if the Monro doctrine has in practice been applied to this and other islands in the West Indies; and on what grounds the Government delays taking similar decisive action to exact

  691
  retribution for the murder of Mr. Benton in Mexico and to secure compensation for his relatives, the circumstances being almost identical?
  Mr. ACLAND: The report of an ultimatum must be founded upon the fact that His Majesty's Minister at Port-au-Prince was instructed to leave the country in the event of the Haitian Government refusing to carry out the decision of an arbitral tribunal as regards the claim in question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. There was no reason to advise the United States Government in advance of the action contemplated by His Majesty's Government and this was not done. The hon. Member will see that there is no analogy between this case and that of Mr. Benton, as is apparent from the answer returned to his question of April 22nd last and to the answer given to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on March 3rd.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MARRIED WOMEN SUSPENDED FROM BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if a married woman suspended from benefit under Section 44 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, is entitled to vote at any ordinary meeting of the approved society on whose books she is?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The right to vote in such a case as that to which the hon. Member refers would depend upon the rules of the society.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the hon. Member ask the Commissioners to issue some new Regulations giving these women the right to vote?
    Mr. W. BENN: No, I think the Insurance Commissioners have sufficient power to approve or not approve of rules which are laid before them.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will these women be entitled to receive the additional benefits under the Act?
    Mr. W. BENN: I do not think that is the question on the Paper now arising out of it. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked why subsistence and loss of time allowances granted to insurance committeemen by Section 31 of the Act of 1913 have not yet been made; whether the consequence is that working men who cannot afford to miss wages are frequently absent from the meetings of such committees; and whether the National Association of Insurance Committees, representing about three-quarters of the insured population, have pressed the Insurance Commissioners to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. W. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to my previous answers on the subject. Unavoidable delay has been occasioned by the necessity for considering the schemes submitted by all insurance committees in connection with the basis of the Grants to be made towards the expense of such schemes, but this delay will not result in any loss to the persons concerned. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    PRESCRIPTIONS ON SUNDAYS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if his attention has been called to the number of cases in which contributors under the National Insurance Act have been unable, even in urgent cases, to get prescriptions made up on Sundays and on early closing days; and if it would be practicable to make some arrangements to provide for doctors on the panel furnishing medicine in urgent cases when a chemist is not readily available?
    Mr. W. BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the latter part of the question the regulations already provide for the doctors themselves dispensing in circumstances such as those referred to, and arrangements have been made by insurance committees accordingly. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any case which he has in mind, I will make inquiries.

    PANEL DOCTORS (PAIMENTS).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury why some better arrangement is not made for the payment of the panel doctors under the National Insur-

    693
    ance Act; and why money due is paid by driblets and is nearly always in arrear for periods of weeks, which treatment of the doctors does not conduce to efficient and satisfactory work by them?
    Mr. W. BENN: As payment to doctors during the year are advances on account of remuneration which cannot be determined till the end of the year, a margin must necessarily be reserved for the final settlement. It will, however, be possible for insurance committees in many cases to reduce the margin reserved when the accounts for last year are completed, and more precise information is accordingly forthcoming as to the actual sums available.

    DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that it is the intention of the Government to shortly introduce a National Insurance Act Amendment Bill, whether, in the event of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster being unable to obtain a seat in the immediate future, he will consider the desirability of meeting the exigencies of the case by himself representing the Insurance Commissioners in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Although this question is based on an hypothesis, I have no objection to saying that the reply is in the negative.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Is the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a Bill to amend the National Insurance Act a definite proposal?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; I think it is.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Then why say my suggestion is hypothetical?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Assuming the Bill has been introduced.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is to have charge of the Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; I cannot. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question, although based on hypothesis, in the negative.

    Income Tax (Lava Rink, Limited).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the correspondence which has passed between the Special Commissioners of Income Tax and the Lava Rink, Limited, as to the assessment
    694
    of the company for Income Tax purposes; if, although the company has in point of fact incurred a trading loss in each of the years 1911, 1912, and 1913, they have been called upon to pay Income Tax on an assessment obtained by taking an average of the results over a period including years in which a profit was earned; if the company has applied for a return of the taxes overpaid; and what action is proposed to be taken in the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Yes, Sir, the company has been assessed on the Statutory basis, and has profited in the past by the average rule, but that rule is now redressing the balance in favour of the Exchequer. For the year 1913–14 it appears to be open to the company to claim some relief under the provisions of Section 23 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, and they have already been informed of the steps they should take if they desire to obtain such relief.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is it not a fact that these people have given full information to the Treasury with regard to their position during the last three years, and is the Treasury satisfied that they have lost money on each year's trading, and, if so how can they be asked to pay Income Tax?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have given the hon. Member an indication of the relief to which the company may be entitled. If he will inform himself as to the average rule he will see that they have been legally charged Income Tax.

    Pyper's Charity.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Pyper's charity of the boys' national school, Lancaster, was originally left to increase salaries paid to teachers of the school; and that, under Section 13 of the Education Act of 1902, such charities were to be paid to the local education authority in relief of rates; and whether, in such a case, which is completely covered by a statutory provision, it is competent for the Board of Education to formulate and approve a scheme whereby part of the charity funds will be devoted to the upkeep of school buildings and part to scholarships for scholars at another school?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first and second parts of the

    695
    question is in the affirmative. I am advised that in the case referred to by the hon. Member a scheme can be made under the Endowed Schools Acts and Section 75 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. I am not prepared to say, in anticipation of the publication of a draft scheme, what provisions could or could not properly be included in it.
    Mr. KING: In view of the fact that for many years they have directly refused to comply with the orders of the Board, will the President of the Board of Education look into the matter himself?
    Mr. PEASE: I will undertake to look into it.
    Mr. LEE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered the last part of the question, whether he would obtain a special report for the school. Will he assent to that?
    Mr. PEASE: I think the first duty is really to try to secure a proper scheme. However, I will look again into the question whether an inspector can do any good in the matter, but I think it is rather outside the work of an inspector.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    NECESSITOUS SCHOOL AREAS.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the new Grant to local education authorities in necessitous school areas will be shared equally and upon the same terms by all local authorities whose education rate exceeds 1s. 6d.; and upon what system these Grants will be distributed?
    Mr. PEASE: In addition to the sum of £350,000 for necessitous areas, which is at present on the Estimates of the Board, I shall have at my disposal a further sum of about £423,000, making a total of £773,000. All the authorities which have already participated in the Special Grant will receive at least the same amounts as they received last year, and those which are the most heavily rated will receive additional amounts. The authorities which have not previously participated, and whose expenditure in 1912–13 exceeded the produce of a rate of 1s. 6d., will receive a Grant of one-half of that excess.
    Mr. YEO: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if London will receive any share of the Grant mentioned this afternoon?
    Mr. PEASE: London will be a participant to the extent of about £200,000.
    Mr. KING: Will legislation be necessary?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Grants which were cut down last year owing to there not being enough money to go round will be put on the full basis or the cut down basis?
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether when a Grant was last given London did not get a share as it was not recognised as a necessitous school area?
    Mr. PEASE: In reply to the hon. Member for Poplar I have to state that London in the year 1912–13 became a necessitous area so far as it could be gauged by having an education rate exceeding 1s. 6d. in the £. The figures are based on the year 1912–13, and the London County Council with thirty-three other authorities with rates exceeding 1s. 6d. will come under the provision for this year for the added money. The London County Council will participate with the other thirty-three authorities. I think that also answers the question of the hon. Member for Colchester.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether it means that in addition to the £300,000 already granted London will get £200,000?
    Mr. PEASE: The London County Council will get £200,000 out of the total of £773,000 given for the whole of England and Wales.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, under the financial proposals of the Government, the clergy will continue to pay one-half only of the rate in the pound payable in respect of tithe rent-charge under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The intention is that the clergy should not pay a larger proportion of rates on tithe rent-charge than at present.

    GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
    Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what relief he proposes to give to the counties in place of the abolition of the agricultural rates Grant, seeing that this

    697
    repeal only affects boroughs very slightly and the counties very seriously?
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked (1) when the new scale of Exchequer contributions will be available towards the cost of semi-national services administered by the local authorities; and (2) how the additional revenue to be raised by fresh taxation for the purposes of local authorities will be expended in the event of the proposed Rating Bill, Valuation Bill, and other necessary enabling legislation not being passed into law?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am proposing to make a statement on these matters in the course of the Debate this afternoon.
    Mr. CASSELasked for what year has the expenditure of local authorities on police, main roads, education, and poor relief been taken in estimating the amount required to meet the new increased Grants referred to in the Budget?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Grants have been calculated on an estimate of the probable expenditure of local authorities in the current year.
    Mr. CASSEL: As to that expenditure of local authorities, will the House be informed as to what that is?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would put down the question.
    Mr. CHAPLINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state, for purposes of comparison, the total estimated amount of the proposed Grants, for the first complete year, which will be received by each of the following local authorities, namely, county councils, councils of urban districts (including boroughs), councils of rural districts, boards of guardians, in the administrative county of England and Wales containing the largest proportion (according to rateable value) of agricultural land, namely, Parts of Holland, in Lincolnshire; and the total amount of the existing Grants received by each of the local authorities of the same county for the latest year for which figures are available?
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the White Paper explaining his proposals in his Financial Statement on the 4th instant, if he will state, approximately, the portions of the estimated proposed Grants in
    698
    the year 1915–16 which will go to urban and rural districts, respectively?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Until the new classification of first-class and second-class roads has been made it will not be possible to give even approximate figures for the Grants to the various authorities within the counties, and the figures for each county, as a whole, can be no more than an estimate. On the data that are available calculations have been made with respect to several agricultural counties, and these indicate that the new Grants would permit a reduction of rates in most counties of about 5d. in the £. But the circumstances differ considerably. Provision will be made that in no event shall the total Grants in any county, union, or district area be less than now.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether that answer is based upon the existing expenditure of the local authorities or upon the prospective expenditure of local authorities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is based on the estimate of the present expenditure.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say what percentage the true revenue of Scotland bears to the total revenue of Great Britain for the last three financial years; and can he give the actual figures in each case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend will find figures for the years. 1911–12 and 1912–13 in the Returns of revenue and expenditure, England, Scotland, and Ireland, House of Commons Papers Nos. 190 of 1912 and 200 of 1913. Final figures for 1913–14 are not yet available; but I will circulate provisional figures with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a White Paper showing the proposed allocation of the proposed Grants in the first complete year of the £1,265,000 allocated to Scotland; and whether he will also state what proportion of the, £1,250,000 for national health insurance will be allocated to Scotland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that the question of the allocation of Scotland's share of the proposed new Grants is now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. As regards the new Grant for

    699
    national health insurance, Scotland will receive the same treatment as the other parts of the United Kingdom, but I fear I am not yet in a position to state the amount of her share.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that the Scottish Members shall have the allocation of the money?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is engaged in determining what the allocation should be.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Am I to understand that the Scottish Secretary is to have the sole power to allocate these Grants?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I mean he is considering the proposals which we have submitted. It will be for the House of Commons, of course, to sanction the Grants and allocation.

    IRELAND.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the amount in the aggregate of existing subventions to local bodies in Ireland that will be stopped if and when the Budget as introduced comes into operation; and (2) whether he will give a list of the Irish Departments to which it is proposed under the new Budget to give Grants, and the amount of the Grant in each case; and whether he will state the amount of the Exchequer subventions that they are at present in receipt of, and to what extent, if any, existing contributions will be reduced?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I stated on Monday last, the sum which I then indicated as Ireland's share of the proposed new Grants will be in addition to the amount of the present subventions, and will be paid over to the Irish Parliament for the services at their disposal.
    Mr. CASSELasked how much it is estimated that the new taxes proposed by his financial statement will produce in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The information asked for is not at present available.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that information is available before the Financial Resolution on the Home Rule Bill comes on?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sure that it is proposed that there should be a dis-
    700
    cussion on the Financial Resolution. At any rate, I will let the hon. and learned Gentleman have the information as soon as I get it.
    Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman let us have it before we vote on the Financial Resolution?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I do not know when the Resolution will be before the House, and therefore I cannot give a definite pledge.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Prime Minister to postpone a vote on the Financial Resolution until we have the information to show by how much the deficit of Ireland will be increased in consequence of the Budget?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question that ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state why there has not yet been issued for this year the statutory Return, National Debt, published last year as Paper Cd. 6798; and, seeing that that Paper, on pages 2, 8, and 9 thereof, gave the National Debt existing at 31st March, 1913, as funded debt £593,453,857, estimated liability in respect of terminable annuities £31,519,908, unfunded debt £36,500,000, other capital liabilities £54,814,656, showing a total of £716,288,421, can he now state the corresponding figures of each of the four items and of the total for 31st March, 1914; and, seeing that the net decrease of the gross liabilities of the State in respect of debt effected in the year ending 31st March, 1913, was, as stated on page 3 of that Paper, £8,518,007, can he now state what was the corresponding decrease of debt in the year ending 31st March, 1914?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Return in question, which is not statutory and which supplements the Return, House of Commons, No. 208, of 1914, issued last week, has not been issued because certain figures are not yet available. I will circulate a statement with the Votes giving the particulars asked for.—[See Written Answers this date.]

    POLICE GRANT.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he

    701
    is aware that the Leeds Corporation spent £22,000 for extra police assistance during the strike of corporation workers in the financial year 1913–14; and whether the statement made in the Budget speech means that half the cost of extra police engaged by municipalities during labour disputes will be paid from the, national Exchequer?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The conditions on which any Exchequer Grant in aid of the police will be made have not yet been settled, but I would point out that if the hon. Member refers to police borrowed by Leeds from other forces, Leeds paid the police authorities from whom they were borrowed for their services, and such a transaction would not involve an increase in the amount which would be paid from the Exchequer towards the pay of the police.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the revenues from the invested funds of insurance companies are exempt from Income Tax, either on property under Schedule A or on interest and dividends under Schedules C and D; and, if so, whether he will consider favourably, as a means of reducing the heavy burdens on other taxpayers, the bringing under contribution of the incomes of insurance companies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No distinction as regards Income Tax is made between the investments of insurance companies and those of other companies or persons; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. F. HALLasked whether a person having an income of £200 a year and four children or more will receive, under the new Budget propositions, a rebate of £1 10s.; and whether a person with £300 a year and four children will receive a reduction of £3?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the circumstances mentioned in the first part of the hon. Member's question, no tax at all would be payable, seeing that the abatements exceed the total income; while in the second case, apart from the ordinary abatement of £160, the taxpayer would be
    702
    entitled to relief from tax in respect of his four children to an amount equal to the tax on £80.
    Mr. F. HALL: As the Government have admitted that a man with £300 salary should get a rebate of £3, will they consider the question of taking steps to see that the man with £200 salary shall get the same amount of relief?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that I can recognise minus values.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can any steps be taken in order that the man may get that relief?
    Mr. LEACHasked to what extent the following classes will benefit by the proposals of the Budget: tenant farmers, smallholders, agricultural labourers, and shop-keepers in agricultural districts?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The circumstances differ so greatly in individual cases that it is not practicable to furnish such an estimate.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked what was the gross assessment to incomes for the financial year 1903–4 and for the financial year 1913–14?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The gross income brought under review for Income Tax purposes was £902,758,585 for 1903–4 and approximately £1,150,000,000 for 1913–14.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of hereditaments in Great Brtiain and Ireland the subject of valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in urban and rural districts, respectively; and state how many valuations of such hereditaments, respectively, have been finally settled?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The information asked for is not available and could only be obtained by the expenditure of very much time and labour to the detriment of the regular work of the Valuation Department.

    SETTLED ESTATE DUTY.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether the proposal to abolish the exemption from Estate Duty in the case of settled estates is intended to apply only in cases where both Estate Duty and Settlement Estate Duty have been paid or would have been payable, or to all settled estates, including those now exempt under Sections 5 and 21 of the Finance Act, 1894?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The proposal extends to all settled estates mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to absolutely repudiate the pledges of his predecessors in this matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not repudiate any pledges.
    Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible under these circumstances for insurance to be carried out?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The matter cannot be discussed by means of question and answer. All these questions can be answered in the Debate later on.

    ESTATE DUTIES.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what date he proposes that the alteration of the scale of Estate Duties and abolition of the exemption from duty in the case of settled estates shall take effect?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is proposed that the alterations to which the hon. Member refers shall take effect for all duties occurring after the 15th August, 1914.

    EDUCATION GRANTS.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether the new Education Grant for necessitous areas will be paid to all necessitous areas or only to those which were necessitous at the time when the original Grant was made; whether legislation will be necessary to enable the Grant to be paid; and at what date it is proposed that the first instalment will be paid?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: In answer to the first part, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer I have already given to the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs. No legislation will be necessary. I cannot say at what date the money will be paid, but I should hope to be able to pay some instalment in advance.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the £515,000 is allocated to the provision of meals and what proportion to necessitous areas?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: Probably about £92,000 to the provision of meals and £423,000 to necessitous areas.
    Lord A. THYNNE: What proportion does £92,000 bear to the cost of feeding borne by the local authorities?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: According to the last estimate available, it is approximately one-half, and it is anticipated that it will be approximately one-half for the current year.

    Food and Drugs Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he proposes to reintroduce this Session the Food and Drugs Bill which was introduced on behalf of his Department in 1913?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am afraid it will not be possible to ask Parliament to legislate on the subject this year.

    Butlock's Heath School.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that His Majesty's inspector's report of Butlock's Heath School, Hampshire, last year complained of continued faults in management and condemned the unpunctuality and backward condition of the scholars; that the managers have urged that the present head-master should be removed owing to his unpopularity with the parents and recent trouble in the school; and that the local education authority has concurred with the managers' view of the state of the school and need for the master's retirement; and whether he will obtain a special report on this school from His Majesty's inspector and communicate such report to the local education authority and the parish council of Otterbourne?
    Mr. PEASE: The report made by His Majesty's inspector in February, 1913, contained passages to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, I may refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 6th August last, a copy of which I am sending him. The inspector visited the school in April last. He informs me that he found it in excellent order, and that the attendance is now very regular. The school will be inspected in the ordinary course during the current educational year, and a copy of the inspector's report will be forwarded to the local education authority. It is not the practice of the Board to forward a copy of the report to the parish council.
    Mr. KING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are some especial difficulties in the case of this school, and will he allow matters to go on in the ordinary course without taking: any steps to remedy those conditions?
    Mr. PEASE: The school will be reported upon shortly, and I will consider the most recent report as to the condition of the school.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy of the Report?
    Mr. PEASE: I will do so.

    Educational Reform.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked if the promised large measure of educational reform will be introduced, as a Government Bill, this Session?
    Mr. PEASE: I am not yet able to add anything to the statement made in the speech from the Throne.

    Sunday Closing (Lerwick).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the inhabitants of Lerwick, by a plebiscite, expressed themselves in favour of the complete Sunday closing of places of public refreshment throughout the year; that at two successive elections town councillors in favour of the above closing were elected to vacancies; that the town council, by a large majority, has prepared by-laws to secure such Sunday closing; and that the sheriff has refused to confirm these; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of introducing legislation to remedy the evils referred to?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first three portions of my hon. Friend's question and that the sheriff, after an inquiry, refused to confirm the by-law in question on the ground that to require the "total closing on Sunday of registered places for public refreshment in Lerwick during the herring fishing season would not be reasonable. I am not prepared, in present circumstances, to give any undertaking with regard to legislation.

    Orkney and Shetland (Elections).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has yet received the opinion of the returning
    706
    officer for Orkney and Shetland as to whether it would be practicable and desirable to hold the election in those counties on one day, as proposed by the Bill now before the House, instead of two days, which have hitherto been found necessary?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The reply to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

    Cunningsburgh Residents.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the Board of Agriculture have made satisfactory arrangements with the proprietors relative to the application of Cunningsburgh residents?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. The matter is still under consideration.

  POST OFFICE.

    FOREIGN LOTTERIES.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the circulars sent out by the Turf Fool Syndicate represented their lottery to be what it was not; that they have not paid the prize money which was guaranteed; and whether there is any method by which the Post Office can interfere with the circulation of fraudulent circulars?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): I am aware that the good faith of the Turf Pool Syndicate has been questioned in the Press, but I have no official information on the subject. In practice, the Post Office has no means of stopping circulars alleged to be fraudulent.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that nearly all the lotteries in Switzerland are frauds, is not the Postmaster-General entitled to make some inquiry about them before he carries their circulars?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I indicated in a statement I made in this House some time ago that I wished I had greater powers than I have, but failing the acquisition of these powers, I cannot go beyond the position I have taken up.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for legislative powers?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General what objection he offers to the Post Office refusing to post outwards to addresses abroad communications which would be illegal if posted in this country?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand my hon. Friend to inquire whether the Post Office objects to the stoppage in the post in this country of communications addressed to a business carried on abroad, which, if carried on at home, would be illegal. If so, the answer is that the Post Office is not at present empowered to stop such communications, but, as I stated in my speech on the Post Office Estimate, the question of obtaining such power is under consideration.

    FULL-TIME SERVANTS.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether the £75,000 which Has been granted for over-riding wage of full-time postal servants of twenty-three years of age and over who are receiving less than 22s. a week is additional to the £643,000 which has been published as the immediate cost of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Postal Servants, or whether it is included in that sum?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The cost of the overriding minimum wage of 22s. a week for men of twenty-three years or over employed in the service of the Post Office is additional to the immediate cost of the Holt Revision as already published. The concession applies, pro rata, to men performing a part-time duty and most of the expenditure will be incurred in raising the pay of such men.

    AUXILIARY POSTMEN (DENBIGHSIRE).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked at what rate auxiliary postmen are now paid in Denbighshire; and whether any increase of pay is contemplated for auxiliary postmen in rural districts?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The authorised rates of pay for provincial auxiliary postmen range between 5½d. and 4¾d. an hour, according to the class of office, as shown on page 10 of the White Paper No. 7355, which was issued recently. The offices in Denbighshire fall into Classes III., IV., and V., and the rates authorised for these classes are 5¼d., 5d., and 4¾d. an hour respectively. Within the limits, however, of the concession, which I announced when introducing the Post Office Esti-
    708
    mates, these rates will be raised to 5½d. an hour.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are all classes to be on the same basis?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Subject to the limits I have already referred to.

    DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked how many Departmental Committees have been; appointed in the Post Office since the date of the presentation of the Hobhouse Committee's Report; whether any such Committees are now sitting and, if so, upon what terms of reference; and whether any Committee is now considering the general organisation of the Post Office administration?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The number of Departmental Committees which have been set up in the Post Office since the date of the presentation of the Hobhouse Committee's Report is considerable, and it would not be possible, without muck labour, to furnish the particulars for which the hon. Member has asked. No Committee is at present engaged in considering the general organisation of the Post Office administration.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask if the Postmaster-General is disposed to appoint any such Committee?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I had not any such idea in my mind.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if the Holt Committee had power under its—terms of reference to deal with reorganisation in so far as the classification of districts is concerned?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question on the Paper. I did not set up the Committee, and I do not carry the terms of reference in my mind.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the fact that telephone subscribers are in some cases required to make a deposit of £7 instead of 10s., which has been demanded up to this time; and will he say what is the total sum which the Government expects to have in hand from this change in the practice?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There has been no change of practice so far as the Post Office

    709
    subscribers are concerned, and, pending the introduction of the revised telephone rates, no general instructions have been issued as regards subscribers who entered into agreements with the National Telephone Company. I found on further inquiry, after my answer to the hon. Member's question of the 7th instant, that, owing to a misapprehension, certain unauthorised steps have been taken at Norwich. I have given instructions that for the present no further action in the matter is to be taken.

    HOLT COMMITTEE REPORT.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Prime Minister whether he can state when it is intended to give a day for the further discussion of the Holt Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not in a position to make a statement at present.
    Mr. FIELD: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will give facilities for a day to debate the Holt Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so, certainly; I cannot yet say.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY MOVEMENTS.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House as to the discrepancies, or alleged discrepancies, which he alluded to, but did not explain, in the Debate of 29th April?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I dealt in the time allotted to me with what seemed to me the most serious and important points raised in the Debate, and I cannot now reopen the subject.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he sat down when there were still some eleven minutes of the time of the House to deal with this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I thought I had exceeded the time. I am sorry.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister what were the special reasons which made it inadvisable to incur the technical difficulties and delays involved in a court martial of officers who might be reluctant
    710
    to take part in operations against Ulster referred to in the late Secretary of State for War's Memorandum of 20th March?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware what the special reasons were.
    Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and ascertain?
    The PRTME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether the records now published by him of the notes of the interviews with General Paget on 18th and 19th March are complete, or if there are any other notes or portions of notes referring to the interviews of the 18th and 19th not yet published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All the records of instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget have been published in full, in accordance with the pledge given by me on 24th March.

    MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister if he will say when he will lay upon the Table his proposals for modifying certain provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to make any proposal and, if so, in what form for the modification of the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill; and when he proposes to communicate his intentions to this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will make a statement on the subject when I move the Resolution of which I have given notice.

    GUN-RUNNING (ULSTER).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state what action the Government are taking with regard to the recent gun-running in Ulster?
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister when he intends to take the appropriate steps to vindicate the

    711
    authority of the law, promised by him on 27th April, with reference to the recent landing of arms in Ulster?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have decided not to take criminal proceedings against the persons concerned in the recent incidents referred to. Other steps are being taken which I do not think it desirable for the present to make public.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Home Secretary to take a similar course with regard to women in this country?
    Mr. AMERY: In consequence of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject of the irresolution of the Prime Minister in dealing with Ulster.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister (1) if he can now give the House the names of the persons responsible for the recent landing of arms in Ulster; whether they included any Members of Parliament, magistrates, or clergymen; and (2) whether he is now in a position to inform the House what quantity of arms and ammunition was landed in Ulster on the night of 24th–25th April; and whether any more arms have been landed since that date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have received certain confidential reports on these matters, but I am not prepared to disclose them at present.

    NEGOTIATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether conversations on the future of the Government of Ireland Bill have been renewed between certain individuals; whether any of the parties of the conversations have taken any means to ascertain the views of the parties whom they represent; and whether the informal decisions, if any, which may be arrived at will be submitted in any formal way to the Members of the various parties returned to secure the passing of a Home Rule Bill for Ireland before any suggestion or decision is intimated to the House of Commons?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Whatever consultations may have taken place are of a confidential character. The House will not be committed to any course without adequate opportunity for discussion being given.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will adequate opportunities be given only to the House, or will the Members of the parties be consulted? Will the Prime Minister take care to avoid any statement being made by any Minister on that bench which involves the party behind him to which they do not agree?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will do my best.

    Irish Transport Workers (Convictions).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of seven persons connected with the Irish Transport Workers' Union, who were charged at the Dublin Police Court, on Tuesday, 5th May, convicted, and fined 5s. and costs each, respectively; whether he is aware that their offence consisted in attending and addressing a demonstration to protest against the exclusion of Ulster from the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill; and if he will take action to quash the conviction?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): My attention has been called to this case in which seven persons were fined for obstructing one of the principal thoroughfares in Dublin and holding up the traffic for about two hours, to the great inconvenience of the public. I understand that the magistrates who convicted the defendants has, at their request, stated a case for the opinion of the King's Bench Division, and until this is heard and determined I cannot make any further statement on the subject.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked why the eight tenants in Cappabane, on the estate of Mr. Donat Sampson, who signed agreements for the purchase of their holding's twelve months ago, have not been accepted by the Commissioners the same as adjoining tenants on the same property whose farms have now all been vested and the sale completed, the tenants being still compelled to pay the old rents?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to, with the exception of the holdings situate on the townlands of Cappaghbaun Mountains, and the Cappaghbaun Park, has been sold by the Land Judge to the Estates Commissioners under the provisions of Section 7 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and undertakings have been signed by the tenants for the purchase of their holdings from the Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts. The tenants on the two townlands referred to did not sign undertakings for the purchase of their holdings, and the lands could not be included in the lands sold to the Commissioners. If these tenants now enter into undertakings for the purchase of their holdings a supplemental offer for the purchase of these lands by the Commissioners will be issued to the Land Judge.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked if Section 30 of the Land Act of 1909 makes provision for the granting of loans to tenant purchasers at 3½ per cent. for the erection of suitable dwelling-houses; and how much money the Estates Commissioners have advanced to tenant purchasers under this Section?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Under Sections 12 and 43 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, the Estates Commissioners were enabled, when dealing with estates, the subject of proceedings before them under the Land Purchase Acts, to expend money for the benefit or improvement of such estates. It was, however, judicially decided that in the case of sale by owners direct to tenants the Commissioners had not the power which they have in the case of estates purchased by them to recover payment of such expenditure as part of the advance to the purchasing tenants, and Section 30 of the Act of 1909 was passed to recover such expenditure in direct sales. The amount so repayable under Section 30 to date is £9,543.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Irish Board of Works will not advance to a purchasing tenant for the purpose of improving his holding, erecting buildings, etc., more than five times the valuation of that holding; and, seeing that the tenants on the Ely estate who require new dwelling-houses are all under £20 valuation, will he say how they are to procure sufficient money from the Board to enable them to build new dwelling-houses?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Tenant purchasers whose holdings have been vested in them can borrow from the Board of Works up to five times their valuation, provided the Board is satisfied with the security. I have no information as to the valuation of the holdings on the Ely estate or as to the existing dwellings, but I may point out that loans are often made for part of the cost of an improvement.

    Congested Districts Board (Ireland).
    Mr. DORISasked when the O'Donel estate, Newport, county Mayo, was acquired by the Congested Districts Board; and what steps, if any, the Board have since taken to relieve congestion amongst the small landholders in the district?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate was acquired by the Congested Districts Board in May, 1911, and since then the Board have taken such steps as were open to them (haying regard to the claims and requirements of other estates needing attention at the same time) to relieve congestion on the property by striping or consolidation of holdings, enlargement of holdings where possible, apportionment of turbary, construction of roads, drains and fences, and the erection and improvement of houses. Negotiations for the acquisition of nonresidential holdings have been conducted with as little delay as the circumstances o£ the case seemed to warrant. Over £3,000 has been expended on the improvement of the estate up to the present.
    Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board have yet taken any steps to acquire the large grazing farms held by Mrs. Dick, Miss Keegan, and Messrs. Francis Chambers, John Curran, William Rose, and Albert Beckett, on the late O'Donel estate, Newport, county Mayo, so as to enable them to relieve congestion in the district, or when they intend to do so?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Negotiations are in progress with the object of arranging terms with Mrs. Dick for the surrender to the Congested Districts Board for the relief of congestion of portion of the land in her possession near Newport, county Mayo. The Board think it may be necessary to obtain possession of Miss Keegan's and Mr. Francis Chamber's lands on the O'Donel estate. The Board have decided not to resume possession of the land in the occupation of Mr. William Rose.

    715
    Messrs. John Curran and Albert Beckett are not tenants to the Board of any lands on the O'Donel estate.
    Mr. DORISasked whether the landholders on the late Pim estate, near Newport, county Mayo, have called the attention of the Congested Districts Board to their extremely congested condition; and whether the Board intend to provide them with enlargements of their uneconomic holdings?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The attention of the Congested Districts Board has been called to this matter, and a note has been made of the application of the tenants in case the Board may have an opportunity of giving them any enlargements of their holdings.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary if he can state the number of years' purchase at which the Congested Districts Board acquired the untenanted mountain and other lands on the Gibbings estate at Newfield, Roskeen, South, and Rockisland, near Newport, county Mayo?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board bought the lands referred to at twenty-six years' purchase of the annual value.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary on what grounds the Local Government Board for Ireland considered that the age record of Hugh M'Menamin (Appeal No. N.B. 308, Letterkenny subcommittee), as given in the Census of 1851, was more reliable than the evidence before the constabulary authorities in 1866, and the other evidence which convinced the sub-committee as to this applicant's age; whether he is aware that the Census records of 1851 are notoriously untrustworthy, and have repeatedly been rejected by the Local Government Board as evidence; and, in view of all the circumstances of the case, will he urge the Local Government Board to send an inspector to inquire into the case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Census Return of 1851 gave the claimant's age on that date as six and a half years precisely, and in the opinion of the Local Government Hoard this evidence must prevail over that of the constabulary record, the date of which is some fifteen years later. The Board have already decided the case, and
    716
    can, therefore, take no further action on the claim.

    Autumn Session.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have decided not to have an Autumn Session this year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not the intention of the Government, if they can help it, to have an Autumn Session.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if the Government intends to arrange for an Autumn Session to give time for the passing of the necessary legislation to give effect to the proposals in the Budget with regard to local valuation, change of rating procedure, and other matters; and, if not, whether the additional taxation provided for by the Budget will be enforced to the full extent until the purposes for which it is required have received legislative sanction?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Salisbury. The latter part of the question can be dealt with in the Debate this afternoon.

    Redistribution of Seats.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce during the present Session a Redistribution Bill; and whether, if the Plural Voting Bill should become law during the life of the present Parliament, he will arrange that it shall not come into operation till after the passing of the Redistribution Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend on 27th April, to which I have nothing at present to add.

    Minister for Fisheries.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister whether, owing to the importance of the fishing industry and the number of persons employed, he will consider the advisability of appointing a separate Minister for Fisheries, whose sole duty it would be to watch over the interests of that industry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that any necessity has arisen for altering the present arrangements, but the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion shall receive careful consideration.

    House of Commons (Payment of Members).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to say when he will provide time for a general discussion concerning the question of payment of Members, having regard to the various statements he has made on this subject and the importance of the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, this is a matter for arrangement through the usual channels.

    Public Service (Speculation).
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to accept the principle that every holder of political and permanent office shall be debarred from speculation; and, in that case, what steps they propose to take to establish this principle as an inflexible rule of the public service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt whether the principle stated in such wide and general terms is capable of being practically enforced. I laid down what seem to me to be the rules applicable to the matter in my speech in this House on 10th June of last year.
    Mr. HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take no steps to enforce the principle which he laid down last year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No. I do not see any occasion for doing so.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the report of the Committee in another place does furnish occasion for taking action?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of anything which has happened since my speech last year requiring me to remind Ministers or civil servants of their obligations.
    Mr. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman discard the opinion of his late Chancellor?
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Does this speculation apply to the date of the next General Election?
    HON. MEMBERS: Not worthy of you.

    Crown Livings.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view of carrying out more fully the unanimous Resolution of this House passed on 11th April, 1899, he will require all clergymen appointed as Army or Navy chaplains or to livings in the gift of the Crown to give an assurance that they will loyally obey the Prayer Book and the law as declared by the courts which have jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The assurances which are at present required from clergymen appointed to Crown livings appear to me the best means of carrying out the Resolution of the House. Army chaplains are selected for commissions by the chaplain-general, with whom I am in communication on the subject. As regards Navy chaplains, my hon. Friend should address himself to the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the assurance now required to be given by a presentee to a living in the gift of the Crown that he will obey his bishop is to be construed as an undertaking that he will obey all orders whatever given by the bishop or as an undertaking that he will obey such orders as the bishop has canonical authority to give?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The undertaking is quite clear. It is that the presentee will obey the bishop of the diocese (subject always to the provisions of Statute Law) in matters of discipline and ceremonial. An assurance of canonical obedience is not accepted as sufficient.

    Milk Stealing (Conviction).
    Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that Henry Ray was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour for stealing a bottle of milk; whether he is aware that the accused is feeble-minded and has had many convictions for similar petty offences; whether he was sent to prison because the London County Council have not yet made arrangements under the recent Act by which such a method of punishment could be obviated; and what action he proposes to take in the circumstances?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has already been called to this case. Ray has been convicted many times of petty offences, and it was brought

    719
    to the notice of the learned magistrate that he had been reported as being to some extent feeble-minded in 1912. The magistrate adjourned the case in order that the Asylums Committee of the London County Council might be consulted, and, on being subsequently informed that no institution was at present available in London for mental defectives, he passed a sentence of two months' imprisonment. The prison medical officer is not at present prepared to certify Ray as feebleminded, but the case will be kept under careful observation.
    Mr. YEO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the value of the milk, and what will be the cost to the community of keeping a man in prison who might otherwise be in an asylum?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think that the asylum would be at least as costly as the prison. I am unable to give the value of the milk.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: How much imprisonment would the man have got if this had been a bottle of whisky?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not say.

    Conversion of Goods.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the state of the law relating to conversion, particularly in regard to the sale of goods on systems of hire purchase, he can see his way to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole matter; and whether, in the event of the appointment of such Committee, he will arrange for representatives of the various interests affected to be afforded an opportunity of being heard?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not quite clear as to what the hon. Member has in mind when he refers to the state of the law relating to conversion. If it is the question of fraudulent conversion of goods obtained on the hire-purchase system, I am informed by the police that very few complaints on the subject have been received in recent years, and that the present law seems sufficiently strong to deal with anything like systematic fraud.

    Suffragist Prosecutions.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked why proceedings have been initiated against Mrs. Flora Drummond and Mrs. Dacre Fox for
    720
    openly and deliberately advocating acts of militancy and violence at public meetings, whilst no similar proceedings are contemplated against those Privy Councillors, King's Counsel, and Army officials who have been advocating a like policy in Ulster; and whether this is to be taken to mean that the advocacy of the enfranchisement of women is a greater offence against the State than is His fostering of armed rebellion against the State in Lister?
    Mr. McKENNA: It would not be proper for me to discuss the circumstances of cases which are now sub judice All I can say is that the hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension if he supposes that the advocacy of the enfranchisement of women is an offence at all. It is not the advocacy of enfranchisement, but the advocacy of arson and outrage which constitutes a criminal offence, and it is that which I am endeavouring to check and suppress when evidence is available on which legal proceedings can be taken.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is the advocacy of arson in England any more an offence against the law than the advocacy of armed rebellion in Ulster, and, if not, why is no action taken against the Ulster people while action is taken against these women?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to draw any parallel of criminality between the advocacy of arson and the advocacy of armed rebellion. The only thing that I am responsible for is the maintenance of law in this country.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it because you are afraid to tackle the other side?

    Feeble-Minded Prisoners.
    Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department whether he is aware that on 28th April four cases came before Old Street Police Court, in all of which the prisoners were alleged to be mentally deficient: that the magistrate observed that, although the Act for the care of the feeble-minded became law on 1st April, there had apparently been no provision made for taking care of anyone coming within the scope of the Act; and that in each case the prisoner was remanded in the hope that some arrangements would be made by the authorities for their permanent reception; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not been able to consult the magistrate who sat at Old Street on the 28th April, as he is absent on leave, but I am informed that there have been four cases in which mental deficiency has been alleged, not on one day, but in the last fortnight, and that in two of these cases the medical evidence did not support the allegation, and in the third the medical decision is still pending. The magistrate did not use the expression suggested in the question, though he said that there was no institution available in London for persons committed under the Mental Deficiency Act. The duty of providing accommodation for defectives rests with the local authorities, and in December last a circular was issued by the Home Office explaining their responsibilities and urging them to make arrangements for giving effect to the Act without delay. As those institutions for defectives which existed before the passing of the Act are already full, new accommodation has to be created for the purposes of the Act, and some delay in erecting or adapting buildings for use as institutions is inevitable. I have urged upon the Board of Control the necessity of pressing the authorities to provide adequate accommodation as speedily as possible, and the Board are making every effort to secure this object.
    Mr. YEO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the question of asking the county council if these boys may be put into some institution instead of being tainted with prison, and also may be given leave as well as the magistrate while they are waiting?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that in these cases the boys have been convicted, and there is a slight difference between the case of a boy who has been convicted and a magistrate who has not been convicted.

    Borstal Institutions.
    Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the Porstal institutions are not fully developed, that further developments are intended, and that neither expense nor trouble should be spared in providing suitable institutions, he contemplates the formation of permanent advisory boards of trade experts to assist him in the choice of the various methods of manual and other training, and to secure the efficiency of that training on business lines?
    Mr. McKENNA: Active steps have already been and are being taken by the Prison Commissioners to obtain expert advice both on education and on technical training at the Borstal Institutions. This is part of the normal development of these institutions now in progress. The Commissioners have very capable advice at their disposal, and can always rely on the co-operation of unofficial experts, which is gladly and willingly given. The question of the formal constitution of advisory boards will be considered.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the four Welsh bishops will be prohibited from attending the Upper House of Convocation, under the provisions of the Established Church (Wales) Bill; whether legal proceedings can be taken in the event of the Church in Wales continuing to demand their right to be represented in the Convocation of their Church; why the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary stated to a member of the London Diocesan Conference that this provision of the Bill, if resisted, would inevitably become a dead letter; and whether he will reconsider his former decision and delete the prohibition, which is objected to by Convocation and Churchmen of all parties?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, it is a purely hypothetical question, and the hon. Member must not assume that the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Welsh bishops and clergy will not observe the law. As to the third part, neither I nor the Under Secretary ever stated to a member of the London Diocesan Conference that this provision of the Bill, if resisted, would inevitably become a dead letter. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Am I to understand that there will be policemen outside Convocation to prevent the bishops attending, and is there any penalty Clause in the Bill to prevent them attending?
    Mr. McKENNA: If any unauthorised persons attend Convocation and take part in the proceedings of Convocation it will not be Convocation.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not that absolute persecution of the Church?
    Mr. HOARE: Am I to understand that the statement reported in the "Times," that the right hon. Gentleman had made to Mr. Lacey the statement referred to in this question, is entirely without foundation?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have read the report—I do not remember whether it was in the "Times" or not—and I think that Mr. Lacey does not purport to state that I made the statement referred to, but that he assumed that, as I gave no answer, it would be a dead letter. That is his assumption and not my answer.
    Mr. KING: Are not the proceedings of Convocations subject to the control of this House, and will not they always continue to be so until the Church of England is Disestablished also?

    Senghenydd Disaster.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Hon. T. G. Elliot Lewis has been briefed on behalf of the Crown to appear in the proceedings which have been instituted against the manager of Senghenydd Colliery in connection with the recent disaster therein; whether the said Mr. Elliot Lewis is a son of Lord Merthyr, who is one of the directors of the said colliery; whether he was aware "of this fact when the appointment was made; and whether, in view of the circumstances recited, he will reconsider the said appointment?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The gentleman referred to has not been briefed on behalf of the Crown.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RANGE-FINDERS.
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many one-man range-finders have been authorised per battalion for the Expeditionary Force, and what proportion for the Army in India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. H. J. Tennant): The answer to the first part of the question is five. The Army Council have no information to enable them to answer the second part.

    SHEERNESS (DAMAGE BY GUN FIRING.)
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the damage done to houses in the locality of Sheerness by the
    724
    firing of 9.2 guns of the Ravelin Battery; if he is aware that workpeople who own the houses in which they reside cannot afford to have the repairs executed necessitated by the damage caused by the gun firing; and if he intends taking action with a view to giving adequate compensation for the damage?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that, there have been any recent complaint arising from the firing of the guns at the Ravelin battery. The War Department is not liable for damage caused by the reasonable use of forts and batteries, and it does not appear that there is ground for any action.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman read the report in the newspapers of last Saturday that this firing is the real cause of the damage to these houses?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have not seen any report. If my hon. Friend will give it to me I will investigate it.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the firm of Strachan and Company, Stroud, are contractors to the War Office; if so, whether he is aware that the wages paid to the workpeople employed are less than those paid by other firms in the district; and whether he will have inquiry made with a view to securing compliance with the Fair-Wages Clause?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): No complaint has been received of infringment of the Fair-Wages Clause by the firm mentioned, but if the hon. Member will be good enough to give particulars of the wages complained of and the class of workpeople affected inquiry will be made.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many labourers and how many leading hands are employed by the War Office in the Army Ordnance Department at wages for labourers of 18s. 6d., and for leading hands at 20s. 6d.; and whether, in view of the action of the Post Office in fixing the minimum wage of 22s., the Government also intend to apply the same principle to these men?
    Mr. BAKER: I hope shortly to make an announcement on this subject.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: As this is a specific question, can the hon. Gentleman not answer it now?
    Mr. BAKER: As the matter is still under discussion I am afraid I cannot.

    Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many temporary clerks appeared before the Commissioners for permission to sit for the examination for permanent employment in the Labour Exchange (Unemployment Insurance) Department on each occasion; and how many passed on each occasion?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The numbers of temporary clerks interviewed by the Civil Service Commissioners on the five occasions on which they have sat for this purpose were 2, 642, 147, 577, and 423, respectively. The numbers passed by the Commissioners at the interviews, subject to passing the subsequent written qualifying examinations, were 0,355, 84, 373, and 148, respectively.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Has there not been a subsequent session of the Commissioners, at which 200 or more temporary clerks were seen, of whom only six were passed to sit at the qualifying examination?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of it.

    Berry Head (Fog Signal).
    Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take the necessary steps to have a fog signal established at Berry Head owing to the present danger to shipping in thick weather?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The establishment of such a work is a matter for the consideration of the General Lighthouse Authority, and I am informed by the Trinity House that they do not consider a fog signal necessary on Berry Head for purposes of general navigation.
    Colonel BURN: Does the hon. Gentleman know that many complaints have been recently made that these fogs come very rapidly and that there is very considerable danger to shipping?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have said that the matter is one for the consideration of the Trinity House.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Strachan and Company, Stroud, are contractors to the Admiralty; if so, whether he is aware that the wages paid to the workpeople employed are less than those paid by other firms in the district; and whether he will have inquiry made with a view to securing compliance with the Fair-Wages Clause?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Messrs. Strachan and Co. are on the Admiralty List, but have no contract in hand at present. They have repeatedly held Admiralty contracts in past years, and no allegation has been previously made as to their failure to comply with the Fair-Wages Clause. If my hon. Friend will furnish any information in his possession bearing upon the point it will be of assistance to the Admiralty in deciding what steps it may be desirable to take in the matter.

  House of Commons (Refreshment Department).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the right hon Member for the Epping Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware that Messrs. Schweppes, Limited, mineral water manufacturers, employ for the manufacture of their commodities low-paid female labour; and whether he will consider the desirability of giving contracts for the supply of refreshments to firms who observe the spirit of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons?
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I do not know much about soda water by itself. I have done my best to get the information required, and I believe I am correct in stating that the rates of wages paid by Messrs. Schweppes, Limited, at their West Kensington factory, from which the House of Commons is supplied, are higher than those paid by any other mineral water manufacturers in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the factory where they make this material is where the low-paid labour is employed and not where they distribute it?
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I will make any further inquiry the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether this particular firm comes under the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I have not the faintest idea.

  Milk Preservatives.
  Mr. HARRISON-BROADLEYasked the President of the Local Government. Board whether, in view of the fact that the Local Government Board has by Regulations specified the exact size of declaratory labels, wording of the same, and the style of type to be used and attached to receptacles containing preserved cream, he will now add to those Regulations what percentage of boric acid is permissible as a preservative; and whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of any legal standard, prosecutions are taking place in various parts of the country against dairymen, grocers, and others retailing cream, for selling cream containing boric acid alleged to be injurious to health, the quantities contained therein having been approved by the medical profession, and the necessity for the use of some preservative having been recognised by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a Regulation made by the Local Government Board on the 1st August, 1912, permits the use of boric acid as a preservative for cream and the sale of cream containing such preservative, and prescribes that labels must be used in connection with such sale stating the percentage of boric acid used as such preservative; whether he is aware that this Regulation does not prescribe what should be the maximum percentage of boric acid so used; whether he is aware that prosecutions have been instituted and convictions obtained against sellers of preserved cream in cases where the percentage of boric acid is considerably below the amount of 5 per cent., which has been in general use by the trade for the last thirty years, and even below the amount of 4 per cent., which was stated by Dr. Hamill, one of the officers of the Local Government Board, to be requisite to preserve cream in hot weather; and whether, in order to safeguard retailers of preserved cream from harassing and unwarranted prosecutions, he will issue a new Regulation prescribing what is the maximum percentage of boric acid permissible for preserving cream?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture on this matter.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the great inconvenience caused by delay will the right hon. Gentleman take steps as early as possible in the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, I am dealing with it now.

  Hampton Court Palace.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the hon. Member for fit. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether arrangements can be made to charge half-fees at Hampton Court Palace on public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays, the days when the working-classes mostly visit the Palace, until such time as the fees can be totally abolished?
  Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner is anxious to have some experience of the working of the present arrangements before deciding whether it would be possible to carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman see whether it is not possible to try the experiment in the Whitsuntide holidays?
  Mr. W. BENN: As soon as we find out how our present system works we will consider it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LONG: Will the Prime Minister say what measures he proposes to take tomorrow if he disposes of the Resolution dealing with the allocation of time?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow, if the Procedure Resolution be disposed of in time, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill and the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill.
Ordered, "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.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill,
Corn Exchange Company (Mark Lane) Bill, without Amendment.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  BORIAL PLACES (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Rating Exemptions (Scotland) Act, 1874." Presented by Captain GILMOUR; supported by Mr. Watson, Marquess of Tullibardine, Mr. Currie, Major Anstruther-Gray, and Captain Campbell; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]
  OLD AGE HOMES BILL.
  "To provide for the housing and maintenance of old age pensioners." Presented by Mr. BARNES; supported by Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Pointer, Mr. Parker, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Hills, Mr. Burt, and Mr. Bowerman; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

    BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.—TEA DUTY.
    Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 7th May.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question [6th May] again proposed, "That the Customs Duty charged on tea until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fourteen, shall be charged as from that date until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifteen, that is to say:—
    Tea, the pound … … five pence;
    and 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. Lloyd George.]
    Debate resumed.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: We are now engaged in the discussion of the fifth or sixth Budget of the right hon. Gentleman, and whatever we may think of it in other respects, there can be no doubt whatever that the proposals which he makes are of the very first importance and very far-reaching in their character. Unfortunately, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing his proposals was, and is still, so incomplete in the information which it afforded, it was in many cases so faulty in its sequence, and so much of it which ought to have been fully explained at the time remains still unexplained, that we are left in this position—that in regard to many of its most important points we are still left almost entirely in the dark. That is the position with which we are confronted to-day. Hitherto on the first Resolutions of the Budget we have been allowed very considerable latitude in discussion. With very few exceptions I have heard, I think, nearly all the Budgets over a vast number of years, and we have been allowed practically a free hand in their discussion. Our difficulty to-day, Mr. Whitley—if I may say so, with every desire and intention on my part to observe your ruling—and has certainly not lessened by your reminder to us the other day that in Committee of Ways and Means what we ought to discuss, and what we should, so far as possible, limit our discussions to, is the method of raising the money which is,

    747
    required, rather than entering into detail upon its distribution. It is on some points, some two or three of the methods of raising the money which have been put before us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I am going to ask the Committee to allow me to make a few observations this afternoon.
    4.0 P.M.
    To begin with, I take the right hon. Gentleman's proposals with regard to Income Tax, and the Super-tax—which, of course, is part of the Income Tax. Here I may say at once that I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) who in days gone by has occupied the same position as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He opened the discussion upon these Resolutions, founding himself upon the views and statements of men even greater, he said, than the present right hon. Gentleman who controls the finances of our country. Much as I differed in days gone by in many things with Mr. Gladstone, nevertheless I must say that he was probably one of the greatest of the financiers of the past generation; and I am bound to say that on one point, namely, the view which he held that the Income Tax should be held largely in reserve as an engine to be used in the possible necessity of a great war, I entirely and most unreservedly agree. Concerning what that very distinguished man Mr. Gladstone used to think on these questions, I am told that in these days many Liberals think and say they do not care very much. I should be very sorry to believe that that was true. I do not think myself that it is true—even now. Be that as it may, however, I am going, with all respect, to remind this Committee of some of the things that Mr. Gladstone did say upon this question. Whether they be popular or not I am determined to remind both the Committee and the public of them, for I think they ought to be brought before the country in face of the proposed Budget. "Anyone who wanted to appreciate the Income Tax," said Mr. Gladstone, "ought to go back to the epoch of its birth." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has done that or whether he is one of those who do not take the views of that distinguished man into very great consideration. He said, further:—
    "You must consider what it has done for you in times of great national peril and emergency, and what it may do for yon again if such times should unhappily return."
    748
    Again, Mr. Gladstone spoke of the Income Tax as "This colossal engine of finance, an engine to which you may resort, and with which, if you judiciously employ it—if the necessity should arise—you can again, if need be, defy the world." Lastly, Mr. Gladstone said, "That the times when the language of violence is let loose, and the plains are besmeared with carnage, are times in which this mighty engine may again be made available for the defence and salvation of the country"—all this, however, subject to one provision, that you do not destroy it! By destroying the Income Tax, Mr. Gladstone, I suppose, meant to use it in the way in which it is being used at the present time by the right hon. Gentleman. That is what I greatly fear that our present Chancellor of the Exchequer will be successful in accomplishing if the has his way in this matter unchecked for a very much longer time. I ask the Committee to remember that all this is being done at a time of general disquiet and unrest among the nations of the world; when what we see at the present moment is not one or two countries, but the whole world in arms. It is a matter for very grave and serious consideration. There is another matter connected with the Income Tax to which I venture to refer, not, in my opinion, so grave as this, still, of very grave and serious importance. It is this: When a man lives up to his income—and lots of people—the majority of people—who have got incomes at all, so far as I know, do live up to their income—it has been my own personal experience, and I believe it is general—what do men do when the time comes and you have a Chancellor of the Exchequer with very ambitious schemes to put before the country, and additional reourse is had to Income Tax for the purpose for which he desires to find the money? What is the result? All the people in the country who live up to their incomes must immediately make reduction. I do not care in what direction it is done, and it must be done, the reductions that they make will inevitably have this result, that a vast number of people will be put out of employment in all parts of the country, in every kind of work on which they also depended for their very existence, and the ultimate burden of all those proposals on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who thinks it so easy or so convenient a method of finding money which he can produce at a moment with more popularity, than he can

    749
    raise it by any other means. The ultimate end of all these proposals is that the burden will fall not upon the rich, upon whom he desires it to fall, but upon the poorer classes of the country. I believe that economically that is a statement which cannot be contested. However that may be, if the wise, patriotic words which I have quoted from that great statesman who was so worshipped for years by the Liberal party are not sufficient to make a, good many Gentlemen opposite pause before they continue to support the right hon. Gentleman in his career upon this particular question, I am afraid that nothing more that I can say would have any effect whatever upon them.
    I pass, therefore, to the next point on which I desire to say a single word, and here again I am happy to think that I am entirely in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester in the views which he expressed the other day upon this further increase of the Death Duties. And once more I am able to submit the most eminent authority of all Liberal statesmen, the man most worshipped by his followers, who undoubtedly was held up to be one of the greatest financiers that ever lived in modern days, and again I am able to quote that most eminent man in my support. Speaking of the case of owners being driven to forced sales in many cases, in order to enable them to meet new obligations of this kind, he said this:—
    "I think it would be an invidious, an offensive, an unwise, and an unjust measure. … to lay on a tax in such a way as would have the effect of forcing them to part with it: and there is no tax, however moderate it might be, if it were fixed on the capital value of such an estate. … which would not have the effect of compelling the possessor to bring his estate into the market."
    That is one of the things that is exorcising and occupying public attention at the present time. That is one of the things that the right hon. Gentleman himself has been only quite recently alluding to, in some of the speeches he has made in the country, all the evils which arise from the estates of great landlords being put upon the market because they cannot afford to retain them in the face of taxation of this particular character. I venture to think that it showed a very remarkable instance of the prophetic and statesmanlike foresight on the part of that great and distinguished man so long ago that he should have been able to protest against the difficulties and objections which he foresaw to legislation of this kind, and which is now being put into force more and more in
    750
    successive years on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. And one thing is perfectly certain in my humble judgment at all events, and that is this, that the only thing this policy can end in, if it is to be constantly extended, is that we may expect that whenever the right hon. Gentleman is hard up for money, his policy will be to break up great estates in all parts of the country. That may be, and I daresay it is, the ideal, the wish, and the desire of the Socialist party in this country; but is the policy of those whom you called in the old days the Liberal party, and is that a policy that will find favour amongst the general ranks of the people of this country? That is the question we have to consider, and as far as I know the people, the right hon. Gentle man will find that his support in this direction is of the smallest and narrowest possible character whenever he has the courage and the decision to appeal to the people of the country for judgment upon all these new-fashioned and extended proposals I would say which he is making in this direction.
    Passing from that altogether, I wish to say something, if the Committee will permit me, upon the proposals announced by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech upon quite another subject, quite different, and that is the withdrawal of the Grant under the Agricultural Bates Act from agricultural districts, and its inclusion amongst the new Grants as part of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for raising the money for the purposes of his general scheme, I propose to show that that method, at all events, of raising the money and funds that he requires may very easily prove, and in all probability will prove, most injurious, not only to agricultural interests, but to the whole of the community at large; and I say this, because we are quite in the dark at the present time as to what is going to be substituted for it. I ventured to put question on the Paper upon this subject in regard to one particular administrative county, and I will have to say a word or two later on upon that particular question. Let me ask now of the right hon. Gentleman what are the Bills that he has already referred us to in connection with the Budget? How many of them are there? With what subjects do they deal? What parts of the Budget? Where are they? What do they contain? When shall we see them? And when shall we have an opportunity of knowing what way we ought to deal with his appeal to vote vast

    751
    sums of money he asks for as a preliminary step by these Resolutions? And why does he still leave us so completely in the dark, and ask us to vote blindfold these enormous sums of money without the least knowledge of the actual purposes for Inch they are going to be used.
    I want to pass to the withdrawal of this Grant from the agricultural districts. Will t he Committee bear with me while I ask them to consider for a single moment what the continued prosperity of agriculture means for the community, and especially at a time like this. What it means, in the first place, is this: It is the great machine for supplying the food which is necessary to the lives and existence of the people, and, as a matter of fact, I may mention this that, in spite of the enormous amount which we receive from abroad, I believe it is the actual fact, though I have not had the time to consult the latest figures upon the question, that even now in spite of foreign competition, we produce one-half of the meat which is consumed in this country. It is quite true with regard to bread, and bread stuffs, on which our population depends far more than on anything else for the great staple of their food, that we receive at this time four-fifths of the whole of that commodity from abroad. It has to be brought across the seas from all parts of the world, and in these days of disturbance and possible war, what would our position be? I have heard great naval authorities on this side of the House say, that our trade routes would be undefended and could not be defended, and I believe that is true owing to the requirements of the Admiralty for all their ships for other purposes. What would be our position here? Why, under these circumstances a general condition of affairs might arise which would most certainly require all the utmost possible effort of the home-grown machine to supply the requirements of the whole population. That raises an enormous question, for which I have no time and could not enter upon this afternoon, namely, the question of our food supplies in time of war. But I have said enough to show that the continued prosperity of agriculture as a food producing engine in this country is a matter of vital importance to the whole of that community, and we are therefore bound to consider, I think, this very difficulty with our present information, to arrive at a conclusion as to how we are likely to stand under
    752
    the new proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to agricultural districts. I was so impressed by its importance that as soon as the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation was issued, and as soon as ever I had had the opportunity of carefully reading it, I took a typical agricultural county in this Kingdom which I knew well myself, namely, Lincolnshire, and there I endeavoured, and I have succeeded with only partial success, to apply the proposals of the Local Taxation Committee to that particular county to find out how it would fare under their recommendations, and whether it would be worse or better off than it was before. Lincolnshire, in which I was bred and born, is divided into three administrative counties, and I took the Parts of Holland, which is wholly agricultural. It gave me a great deal of trouble, because in order to get all the figures I had to write to all the different local authorities, some twelve in number; to ask for the figures and information I needed. They were all most helpful, as I was certain they would be from all my recollections in that part of the world, and I have got sufficient information out of them, in addition to what I obtained and could obtain from certain public returns, for the purposes which I wanted, namely, to make a comparison between their receipts under the Agricultural Rates Act from the latest figures of 1911 and 1912, and what they would probably get under the recommendation of the Departmental Committee.
    I have here a rough summary of them. It is not quite complete, for one or two of the returns are still wanting. In what I am going to say I am rather understating the loss under the recommendation to the Departmental Committee, because my figures are not absolutely complete. Under the existing Grants, what they get according to the latest available returns, is roughly £70,000. Under the Committee's recommendations they would get £60,000, and no more. That is a loss of £10,000 in one county. Like all the other counties, instead of a loss they demand a great increase of relief in consequence of the enormous increase of the burden of the rates on agricultural land at the present time, a relief which the right hon. Gentleman has already more than once promised to the agricultural districts of this country, and, above all, to the Farmers' Union, which called upon him not very long ago. Now,

    753
    I come to my next point. Since the recommendations of this Committee we have had the Budget proposals, and it is impossible to make the same calculations because, I understand, in spite of the reply given to me, that the basis of distribution is not sufficiently settled to enable even the Government themselves to know what share is to go to the agricultural districts. We should all like to know what it is going to be. We are referred to these Bills. It is quite true that the Budget makes larger contributions than the recommendations of the Local Taxation Committee, but there is no reason whatever, as far as I can make out, having studied them both, to suppose that in this particular county they will wipe out the deficit which would undoubtedly have occurred under the recommendations of the Local Taxation Committee.
    I am quite convinced myself as to what will occur under the proposals of the Budget. If it did wipe them out, what then? Where is the large additional relief come from which the right hon. Gentleman has already promised, and promised quite recently to the Farmers' Union and to other representatives of the agricultural interest? We want a great deal more information upon this crucial point than we have had up to the present, and more than we are likely to get very easily from the right hon. Gentleman. Will he be kind enough to tell us to-night all about these other Bills which he has spoken of, and to which we are referred for information? Where are they? Are they drawn? Are they prepared, and what do they contain? The right hon. Gentleman ought to know all this, and he must know unless he has adopted a wholly unusual and the wholly unconstitutional course of asking Parliament to vote him unnumbered millions of money—[Laughter]—well, I call it unnumbered millions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer trips down to the House of Commons and asks for £10,000,000 additional money for purposes which he has never explained, and which I am asking him to explain at this moment, and which he has already been asked to explain, and which up to the present we have had no explanation of any sort or kind. Is this additional relief promised provided for in these Bills, and how is it given? How is it to be distributed, and how much is to be given? These are all perfectly plain questions which, if put to any other Chancellor of the Exchequer in making these enormous proposals,
    754
    would be answered at once, if they had not in the usual course been already explained to Parliament upon which he was making these enormous demands. We have a right to know on behalf of the agriculturists of this country, Parliament has a right to know, and the people have a right to know, before Parliament is asked to vote for these Resolutions.
    The agricultural position calls for it in addition. It is serious enough, Heaven-, knows. I will give the briefest possible summary of it, so that the House may judge whether I am exaggerating or not. The total amount of the rates on agricultural land to which the Act of 1896 applied was in round numbers at the time when it was passed £2,700,000, or 2s. 3d. in the £. Since the passing of the Act the rates to which the Agricultural Rates Act apply have increased from £2,700,000 to £4,400,000, or 3s. 8d. in the £. I remember a speech made by the President of the Board of Agriculture somewhere down in Wiltshire in which he spoke of the rates at the time, which were 2s. 1d. or 2s. 5d. in the £, as an enormous burden upon the agricultural production of the country which ought not to be suffered or continued. Here we have an increase up to 3s. 8d. in the £, and that is an increase of 1s. 5d. in the £, or £1,700,000 in the rates, falling on agricultural land since the passing of the Act in 1896. But now, in spite of that enormous increase in the rates, we are told that the Grant of £1,325,000 is to be withdrawn altogether, and that is part of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know, and what we shall insist upon knowing as this Debate continues is, what provision you have made or are making in your Bills to supply the deficiency created by the assessment of agricultural land on one-half of its rateable value which is to remain, and in so doing restore the position in rural and agricultural districts to what it was at the time when the Act was actually passed. That is a perfectly plain, simple, and straightforward question, and one to which we are entitled to an answer, and I hope with all my heart there will be no evasions on this subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who is usually so open and fearless in the demands and the statements he makes, will be as frank and complete in his reply as I have tried to put the case before him this afternoon.
    But that is not all. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of another thing.

    755
    That is not the whole of the demand. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that two Royal Commissions—the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression appointed by his own leader, Mr. Gladstone, and the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which reported in 1901, of which he spoke so highly the other night, and which, as a matter of fact, was appointed by the humble individual who has now the honour of addressing this House—put their names to their several reports and expressed the opinion that if full and fair justice was done to the interest and industry of agriculture, as compared with other trades and industries in the Kingdom, they were entitled both on the ground of ability to pay and benefit received, to be relieved, not of one-half, but of three-quarters, and to be assessed only on the rateable value of one-quarter of agricultural land. Those recommendations have been before the country for years, and nobody ever acted upon them. I was not able to act on them at the time I introduced the Bill of 1896, because at that time to use the right hon. Gentleman's own expression, there was not enough money to go round. It was none the less just then, and it is just to-day.
    I always intended, and I think I said so, that whenever the opportunity offered again, I would press the just claims of agriculture to their full extent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind. That increase, it must be remembered, is due to no fault whatever on the part of the local authorities. It has been caused by and is due to the action of Parliament. It is Parliament which has passed over and over again Acts imposing new burdens upon the rates for national and general purposes of its own, and in some of those Acts it has even gone further and taken powers to itself for the different departments in the Government to enforce them at the cost of the local authorities, over the heads of the local authorities, and very often entirely in opposition to their wishes. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to this the other night when he made his statement on the Budget. When I first came into Parliament local taxation was always one of the prominent questions, and before we had passed in this House all kinds of new rules and regulations, which I did my very utmost to oppose at the time, the independent Members took good care that the rates should not be raised. Whenever Bills were introduced into the House of
    756
    Commons the local taxation party at once took counsel together and opposed, as a general rule, every Bill for increasing the rates unless national funds were forthcoming for the purpose, and we were almost invariably successful. Then came a different era in the House of Commons, and it was one of the most unfortunate I have known, for the power of independent Members ceased to exist. That is why the rates upon agricultural land have increased to the enormous extent that they have done. No blame whatever is attached to those who passed the Agricultural Rates Act in the year 1896.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Education Act, 1906.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: That began before, and no one had greater cause to object to it than myself, because it was the effect of the Education Act of 1902, many years afterwards, and nothing else, which lost me the seat I had filled in Lincolnshire for twenty-seven years. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of what happened at the time the-Agricultural Rates Bill of 1896 was before the House. I have been a long time in Parliament, but never in my career have I known so obstructive an Opposition as we had to meet at that time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was the moving spirit of that Opposition. I have never forgotten it, and I have always looked forward to the time when I might possibly have the opportunity of paying my debts. I am not sure that it has not come. It will depend on the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. If he will meet us fully, fairly and frankly on this question, well, he will not find me up in arms as strongly as I should otherwise be. I will not make any promises except of one kind. If he does not meet us as he ought to do, and as I am quite sure the agricultural party will demand that he shall do, he will find, if I am spared life and health, that he will have the hottest time he has over had in his life. I will spare nothing to defeat him and his measures; and with those words, and my thanks to the Committee for the patience and indulgence with which they have listened to me. I beg to conclude.
    Mr. DILLON: This Debate has proceeded now for three days, and up to the present no one representing the Irish Nationalist party has sought to address the House. Therefore, I feel bound to say a few words in order to lay before the

    757
    House the views of the Nationalist party in regard to the Budget. I do not rise to complain of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget proposals as unfair to Ireland. On the contrary, in their main outlines, both as regards the method by which he proposes to raise the money and as regards the conditions under which he provides that Ireland's share should be allotted, I think that the Budget is fair and just to Ireland. There are two points, before I say a word on the effect of the Budget generally upon Ireland, to which I would like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The local Grants that are to be distributed under the Budget are to be allocated in the various proportions he has set forth. I do not agree with hon. Members who find it is extraordinarily difficult to understand the details. I fancy I understand fairly clearly the principles on which these Grants are to be allotted. They are, under certain conditions which are set forth, to be allotted to those services which are now partially maintained by the rates. Accordingly, in applying that principle to Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he must, before calculating the Irish share, subtract all those services to which it is proposed in Great Britain to give relief which in Ireland are not maintained at all out of the rates.
    The two main cases—in fact, I think the only two cases, which come under that definition are the police and education. In the case of Ireland, of course, as we all know, the police are not on the rates. The rates do not and never did make any contribution since the reform of Sir Robert Peel in 1845. That is a strong position for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up, but I would ask him to keep an open mind on the question of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, because they are on the rates of Dublin, and heavily on the rates. Indeed, if he looks into it, I think he will find that the police rate in Dublin is heavier than it is in most English boroughs, or even, if I am not mistaken, in the Metropolis itself. That is the first point to which I wish to draw his attention. I do not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this stage for any specific answer to the claims I am now making, but simply that he will promise to consider them, preserve an open mind, and be prepared to meet our claims when we put them forward in greater detail, supported by figures, at a later stage. The second point is that of education. It is quite true
    758
    that in Ireland, for historic reasons, we have never been able to put education upon the rates, and it would be impossible to do so. That has been unfortunate in some respects for education, because it has placed us at a disadvantage as compared with England and Scotland. The principle upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeds is that he will give to Ireland no relief in respect of the services which are now maintained by an Imperial contribution entirely, and which do not come upon the rates. At first sight, as applied to Irish education, it is plausible that we should lose all our share in the Education Grant, but I think, when he looks into the figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that Ireland has some claim—I do not say a large claim, but a moderate claim—even in respect of education, and while we cannot ask for any relief given under this Act in so far as it is a relief of the burden of rates, we are, I think, if we can say, apart all together from the rates, and eliminating the rates, that we obtain a smaller proportion per child or per head of the population from the Imperial Exchequer, entitled to our share so far as it is covered by that principle.
    I do not think anyone will argue, that because in Ireland primary and secondary education get no support from the rates, therefore the Imperial Exchequer should give them less than they give to education in Scotland and England. On that point, also, I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep an open mind and not to close the door against us until we take an opportunity on the Second Reading or in the Committee stage of the Bill of laying the case before him in full detail. There are just one or two questions as regards the method of raising taxation. I have been a pretty attentive listener during these Debates, and I have been very much amused. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) to-night call attention to the Debates on the Agricultural Rates Bill, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself joined in obstructing. I may say that I am absolutely unrepentant. I opposed it on principle, although Ireland stood to win by it, because it is an agricultural country, and I am still of the same opinion. We have all listened with pleasure—I know I have—to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I must congratulate him on the fire of youth which he still retains. He, as well as the hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square

    759
    (Sir Alexander Henderson), and Lord Esher in the "Times" to-day, advocate with extraordinary force, earnestness, and eloquence, a doctrine I have heard for nearly thirty years advocated from the same quarters in this House whenever fresh taxation is proposed to be placed upon property or income. If you tax income or rich people, you are not taxing them at all, but the poor. Indeed, the hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, went on the other night to prove that not only when you tax the rich are you in reality taxing the poor, but that the rich man immediately transfers his burden, with additions, on to the shoulders of the very poor people. That is a strange doctrine—a very interesting one. If it were true, then all the old lessons which we used to be taught in our youth, when we studied history, are false, and it is not true to say that the great starvation and misery which drove the people to madness in France before the great Revolution were due to the fact that the rich classes were exempt from taxation and the whole burden fell on the poor, because if they had transferred the burden—as has since been done, with the result that enormous wealth has accumulated in a country which was described as inhabited by starving wretches who fed upon grass—if they had then transferred the burden of taxation from the poor to the rich, they would have done away with the exemption which the rich enjoyed, and they would only have produced an aggravation of the cause.
    When I listen to the Jeremiads of wealthy men like the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Houston), who the other day, arose amid the groans of the House, and asked what a man would have to pay under this Budget if he enjoyed an income of £100,000 a year, I am reminded forcibly of the prohecies of disaster and woe to which we listened for nine months, when the Budget of 1909 was under discussion. We were told then by great and illustrious men, by some who at one time had been Liberal leaders, that if the Budget of 1909 were passed, everything would be at an end. One distinguished statesman said there would be an end of family institutions in this country, that the wealth of England would disappear, together with its trade, and that the real result of the Budget would first be seen in the starvation and unemployment of the masses throughout the country. We were also told that, if we passed that Budget, we
    760
    would starve Ireland and reduce her to poverty, and that our constituents would rise up as one man against us, and we would never be seen in this House again.
    What has happened? The Budget of 1909 has now been five years in operation, and I challenge any man in this House, or any man outside who is learned in the history of economics, to point to any five years in the whole history of Great Britain where there has been such astounding and marvellous prosperity, which has defeated and falsified all the anticipations of those learned in economics and trade. No one expected, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any of his colleagues dreamed, that the last five years would prove so prosperous. It is said it is all luck and chance, but what would have been said if the contrary had been the case? Suppose we had had depression in trade, would it have been attributed to bad luck? Would it not have been triumphantly claimed as the inevitable result of the Budget of 1909. All my life I have believed that the principle of laying the burden of taxation in fair and just proportion on the backs of population, as far as possible in proportion to the extent in which they are able to bear it, is a principle which is not only defensible from the point of view of justice and right, but is in reality the soundest economy. I believe the work of the Budget of 1909 by putting some check—a check in my judgment just as beneficial to the wealthy classes in this country as to the poorer classes by preventing them becoming too much the objects of class hatred, jealousy, and envy—on the undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small section of the population, not only will be advantageous from the point of view of justice and equity, but enormously advantageous for the prosperity of the country and the increase of trade.
    That brings me to the last point I wish to touch upon. I really only rose for the purpose of stating the case of Ireland in this matter; but there is one point which makes me perhaps value more highly than anything else the principles of the present Budget. For years I have been associated with men in this House who used to be—I am sorry to have to apply the word "used"—far more vigorous and far more courageous in their resistance than they are now to naval expenditure, and the expenditure on armaments. I have taken a good part in the past in resisting this expenditure, and I am still quite un-

    761
    repentant. I still hold the opinion that it has been unnecessary expenditure. It is a mad expenditure, because it inevitably incites other nations to strain themselves in the competition in this horrible race. It has been the result of panics deliberately engineered by interested parties, who first poison the minds of the people of this country by false reports, as they did in 1909, when we were told that the Germans were expediting their programme, and that mysterious ships were being built up livers in Germany that could not even float the canoe. I am still unrepentant in my convictions. Gentleman in those days got up and sang, "We want eight, and we cannot wait." I remember the Croydon election when the streets were paved with gold in order to maintain that panic. I say, deliberately, I still hold the view I then did. I say to my hon. Friends opposite who have been engaged in this campaign in the past, that the provisions of this Budget have for the first time brought home in a tangible and emphatic manner to the wealthy men of this country the fact that if they raise Navy panics and bring about increased expenditure on the Navy and upon armaments, they must expect to pay for it. I believe that in that respect the provisions of this Budget, in so far as the Super-Income Tax, and the increased Income Tax and Death Duties are concerned, are more weighty and more valuable in preventing—and I believe in prevention rather than in cure—future naval panics than all the speeches we have had delivered.
    Mr. LOUGH: It has struck me while listening to the many speeches we have had upon this Budget, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, with perhaps one exception, have been a little too indiscriminate in their denunciations of it. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) showed himself sufficiently grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the relief he has promised to local rates. One hon. Gentleman behind him did, I am glad to say, take the opportunity to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for, and to congratulate him upon the step he was about to take.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Who was it?
    Mr. LOUGH: The hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst).
    Sir F. BANBURY: He must have been dining.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I do not; want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I would Like to say that the report of any speech on that occasion in the Radical papers was wholly erroneous, as I hope to have an opportunity of explaining presently.
    Mr. LOUGH: That comes from being dependent for information on the papers. At any rate, I only desired to compliment the hon. Gentleman. But I would like to suggest to hon. Members opposite that they would get on much better if they were more discriminating in their attacks, and when my right hon. Friend does something for them which they have always been asking should be done, and does it in a bold and deliberate manner, they might give some expression of gratitude along with their criticisms. There are two or three grounds for the congratulations which we might offer to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his Budget before we criticise it. In the first place, it will help the local authorities in a way which has long been promised by both parties. It is a courageous attempt to fulfil that promise, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to realise all his hopes and carry out all his views with regard to the matter, on the safe lines I am going to suggest presently. This Budget embodies another reform to which hon. Members on this side are pledged. It still further increases the tendency to place the burden of expenditure in this country on the back of the direct taxpayer and to relieve the indirect taxpayer. I will take two dates to show what has been done in this direction. In the year 1888 the proportion of direct taxation was 45.3, as compared with 54.7 on indirect taxation. Ever since there has been a tendency to increase the first percentage and to diminish the second, until now the proportion of direct taxation is 60 per cent., as against 40 per cent of indirect taxation. I do not say that those who have been relieved by the remission of indirect taxation might not be asked to make some contribution in direct taxation. I will say nothing about that. But I do urge that this is the most economical way in which to raise the necessary revenue for this country.
    5.0 P.M.
    There is another ground, and perhaps the chief ground, for congratulation to my right hon. Friend. It has been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). We must remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day has

    763
    distinctly promised that our naval expenditure shall be reduced next year. An hon. Member near me says they always promise that. But Governments do not always do it. They generally do it when we are getting near a General Election. Nearly always after a General Election there is great expenditure on armaments and in other unjustifiable directions. Just as it was with the Tory Government in 1904–5, when, knowing they were coming to the end of their tether, they made a great reduction in naval expenditure, so to-day my right hon. Friend makes a pledge—and I believe he will have the support of the House and the country in attempting to fulfil it—that this expenditure will be reduced next year. It wants reduction badly. I will take again the years I mentioned before. In 1888 the expenditure upon armaments was 16s. 8d. ped head of population. In 1913 it was 31s. 8d., and when I take into account the increased expenditure this year, I am quite sure I am within the mark in saying that our expenditure on armaments has doubled in these twenty-five years. We must also bear in mind the great increase there has been during the same time in the population, and I say, therefore, this is a most extraordinary figure which should give the House pause before it sanctions any more expenditure in that direction. There is one other point on which my right hon. Friend may be congratulated. The Budget is very cleverly designed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will begin to get his money almost immediately, and if there is much obstruction to the Bill going through, though the relief may be delayed for a time, in any case the money will eventually come in. In that respect it is one of the best designed Budgets I have ever seen. All these are causes for congratulation so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned. My chief object in rising this afternoon is to warn my right hon. Friend against two or three speeches which have been made by hon. Gentlemen who sit behind his back on this side of the House, who have rather encouraged him to tread the path of extravagance The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), in his speech last Wednesday, said that the opinions of the Liberal party had absolutely changed with regard to the questions of expenditure and economy. I entirely deny it. The
    764
    opinions of the Liberal party have not changed a bit.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I speak subject to correction, but I think I was cautious enough to say its policy rather than its opinions.
    Mr. LOUGH: I do not quarrel with the correction of the right hon. Gentleman, although, if he refers to his words, I think he will see that he used the word "opinions." I do not believe that either the opinions or the policy has changed. No temporary resort to expenditure, such as we have had from these benches in one or two respects during the last few years, will alter the general trend of opinion in the Liberal party. As regards naval expenditure, for instance, at the annual National Councils of the party resolutions were unanimously carried in favour of a great reduction. I do not believe it will be possible to permanently alter the strong belief of the Liberal party in economy, therefore I stand up to say a few words with regard to the two or three speeches made from this side of the Committee. One was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money), another by my hon. Friend the Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. Sydney Arnold), and another by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who is usually a good economist. All these hon. Gentlemen suggested,. "Let us not bother about the figures in this Budget. They are quite small figures in comparison with the income of the nation." They all based the matter on the income of the nation, as if that were an easily ascertained and certain point on which it were safe to base the expenditure of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire told us to take the test of luxurious expenditure. He did not take the test and did not suggest any figures that proved there was any luxurious expenditure going on at the present time among the bulk of the population. The only thing I heard him mention in order to support his argument was motor ears. He appears to be "dead" on motor cars, and will not allow anybody to have a motor car. His argument would appear to be this: that if the general mass of the people are spending money extravagantly, therefore the State ought to spend extravagantly. That is a very poor argument. Whether the general public are spending much or spending little, we in this House should set an example of economy.

    765
    My hon. Friend went on to say that it is generally forgotten how large the nation is, that we are a nation of 46,000,000 people, and that supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a shilling to each one of us it would come to £2,000,000. Why should he give a shilling to each one of us? If he gave a £5 note to each one of us it would represent £200,000,000. I do not think this should be done or suggested. It is very easy to levy money when you are the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a strong Government, but it is very hard to distribute benefits so that they shall reach the people you want to benefit. The taking of the money or the property of citizens is the next most important thing to taking their lives, and it should not be taken unless every regard is had to economy, and it should not be taken except for purposes of the most legitimate character. My three hon. Friends based their arguments on the national income. That question is one which I myself used to bring forward long ago in this House, although for very different purposes. I mentioned it then to check extravagance. Now, when I find my own pet child, is used to prop up ex-travagance and to encourage expenditure, I feel very great alarm. The worst offender was my hon. Friend the Member for the Holmfirth Division. He attenuated the amount of the expenditure so much that he brought it up to £283,000,000, and suggested that it was only 8.5 of the national income, which he said was £2,150,000,000. He made many mistakes in that calculation. If you make a comparison between the expenditure of the State and the national income you must include local expenditure.
    Mr. SYDNEY ARNOLD: The estimate I gave was based on the views of Sir Robert Giffen and M. Leroy-Beaulieu, and these eminent authorities were dealing with national expenditure.
    Mr. LOUGH: I am not carried away by the name of Sir Robert Giffen or anybody else. I only want to introduce here the rough-and-tumble argument that occurs to men of common sense in regard to this matter. I suggest that the expenditure out of rates must be included, the amount of which is something like £100,000,000. If you add that, the figures which my hon. Friend gave would be entirely upset. Another point is that you must not take account of the total national income without making what is called a living allow-
    766
    ance in regard to the expenditure of the people. I want to be quite fair, and must say that that was fully recognised by my hon. Friend for East Northamptonshire. He quoted Bentham and Mill in support of that, and he was quite right in doing so. He said we must excuse the very poor people from taxation. My hon. Friend for the Holmfirth Division did not excuse the very poor from taxation. Sir Robert Giffen, who appears to be an authority who appeals to him, put the amount that ought to be allowed at £12 per head of the population. If you take that £12 per head of the population from the £2,150,000,000 you get to a national income of about £1,500,000,000, compared with an expenditure of about £300,000,000 a year, or 20 per cent. more than the amount taken at present for national expenditure. That is a very serious figure and ought to give my hon. Friends pause before they support expenditure of this character. Both my hon. Friends brought in the German analogy in regard to these figures. They said it is all right for us to go on in this way because they do it in Germany and in France. But they only take that part of the German procedure which suits their argument and they leave out the most important point. What is the limit of exemption for incomes in Germany? £40 a year. Here we exempt everybody below £160 a year. A German friend of mine visited this House last Tuesday and said, "You get off very easy in England. So far as the lower grades of people in Germany are concerned, every servant girl has to pay Income Tax, and if she gets board and lodging which is valued at £30 a year and her salary is £2 a year, she has to pay Income Tax on £10." My hon. Friends must not ask us to follow too closely the analogy of Germany, because you soon get into difficulties you do not expect.
    I would like to submit to any hon. Friends one further argument on the question of national income. You cannot deal with the figures properly without making a living allowance. Supposing you took the total national income at £350,000,000, without making allowance for the fact that people have to live, you will get into extraordinary difficulties over taxation. You must not do this sort of thing at all. Therefore, with great respect, I would' suggest to my hon. Friend, and, above all, I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it would be well to put aside all these arguments. They have not

    767
    been properly thought out. People do not like taxation, and the lower we keep it and the lower our Budgets are, the more popular shall we be outside. I want the Liberals to keep on the Government side of the House, and we shall do far better it we fight for economy than if we support inflated expenditure. I would suggest to my hon. Friend—these new economists—that
    A little learning is a dangerous thing."
    and that they should
    "Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
    I should like to give one or two facts with regard to the objects to which the expenditure is to be devoted. The first point the Chancellor of the Exchequer made was as to expenditure on education. Some 3.9 millions of the sum that is to be raised is to be devoted to education. Education is almost as bad as the Navy. Just as the Navy is to hon. Gentlemen opposite, so is Education to us. You have only to mention education, and any amount of expenditure is at once justified. We ought to look very carefully to the manner in which this money is expended, and we should try to get some security for economy in the distribution of the money, or we may do more harm than good by giving this large sum to education. If we take the figures of expenditure on education in this country in 1902, as compared with 1914, we find that the Board of Education Estimates are £4,100,000 more than in 1902. The rates also have to be calculated. There is great difficulty in estimating the amount of rates in 1902, but so far as they can be calculated, the expenditure out of rates now is 6.8 millions more—that is to say, without this House opening its purse at all, without any new Budget, millions more are being expended on education than in 1902. We discussed the Education Act of 1902 from the religious point of view, but that was not the most important point of view. It was a great scheme for opening the purses of the ratepayers and taxpayers automatically, and pouring out an increased expenditure of £11,000,000, without the slightest check as to how it should be expended. Hon. Members may say that there is an increase in the number of children now in the schools. The increase in the number of children is only 14 per cent., whereas the increase in the rates and taxes in the twelve years is 75 per cent. That is the way we are going on
    768
    with regard to education. Now we get the Budget proposal to spend another £4,000,000 upon it. I grudge no expenditure that is necessary, but I want to get out of the minds of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee the idea that they will secure in this or any other respect good results by mere expenditure. No, Sir, the money is wasted in a flood, and our system may be worse at the end of ten years, when you have spent these huge sums, than it was at the beginning.
    The next largest item to which this outlay is attributable is the Poor Law. I have not furnished myself with figures, but I think I shall be within the recollection of the Committee when I say that something like £3,500,000 is to be devoted to assisting expenditure under the Poor Law. Why should we do this until the whole system of that expenditure is looked into in the light of the new facts? See what the Poor Law was twenty years ago. It then had a dozen functions. It gave the only relief which was given to those who now receive old age pensions. It did a great deal for children; it gave all sorts of relief which the State is doing in other ways now. Has the Poor Law establishment been reduced? Does anyone think of reducing it? Not a bit. And we are going to pour in £3,500,000 more on the already inflated expenditure which is going on in every part of the country. Take our position in London. We are tyrannised over by a whole bevy of bodies which seem to me to have little merit except as rating authorities. There are the London County Council, the Borough Council, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Water Board, and, of course, the rates for education. What merit have these bodies? They have none at all except that of levying huge rates on the taxpayers, especially the Poor Law authorities. If anyone will think, here is this small sum which is to be given for the feeding of school children. That relieves the cares of the Poor Law authorities. Old age pensions are a clean economy to them. Before another penny is given in this direction there should be a thorough reorganisation of the whole system, and the House should give nothing without securing that there will be economic administration of it, and that the object of it which my right hon. Friend has in view in giving the money should be actually secured.
    This House has been creating new local authorities without any reference to the boards of guardians which existed before.

    769
    In 1902 they created new education authorities. What is wanted is business regulation. If the county council is not the proper body make it the proper body, and set under the county council all the other taxing authorities in the local areas wherever they may be. I believe by this means or by some means every effort should be made to secure an economic administration before the money is given, although I know the difficulty that would impose on my right hon. Friend, because he referred only to the Grants which were given for certain purposes. I suggest that an attempt should be made to see that there should be an economic administration here at the centre and in the various localities. I am sorry our old friends, the breakfast-table duties, have been entirely neglected. It may be said this is going quite contrary to the line of argument I presented to the Committee, but I do not think so. I think another means of getting the money, even if it were to grade the Income Tax a little lower, might have secured it. These breakfast-table duties are very uneconomic, and they lay a burden on the lowest class of people. The Tea Duty is in a very bad way. I should have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to deal with that, although I admit the difficulty. There are great complaints about the height of the Tobacco Duty. It would be a very great relief if some consideration could be given to these questions. I hope that in the Revenue Bill, if there be a Revenue Bill, we shall have an opportunity of considering some of the aspects in which the Income Tax at present presses very severely—on married women, for instance—and there are one or two other anomalies. There are also one or two considerations in regard to the way the Income Tax was collected for the past three years which requires consideration. I ask my right hon. Friend to endeavour to secure, both for the good of the services themselves as well as the advantage of the State, that an economic system of expenditure is adopted in every Department before these large Grants are made.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavours for economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to have been correct in his Estimates for the last year, and that he had budgeted without excessive taxation. This country, like every other country in Europe, has been going through a period of prosperity which has
    770
    been unequalled in any preceding period, and naturally the revenue would derive the same benefit as we should do in a period of prosperity. He told us it was more difficult for him to accurately estimate what the course of events was likely to be, and he asks for an enormous sum, but without telling us exactly what he is going to do. I was not a Member of the, House last Session when the Budget was presented, but I had an idea that it was the function of the various Departments to make their Estimates and present them to the House after they had been examined by the Treasury, and that means were taken to ascertain whether the expenditure which they intended to make on the various Departments was justified and to ascertain where economies might be made. The Chancellor has put down an Estimate from the various Departments of no less than £205,000,000, and it gives a deficit upon the revenue which can be estimated on last year's basis at something like £5,500,000. Not satisfied with this enormous expenditure, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is at present occupied in ascertaining by what means he can possibly increase expenditure. We are told that we must refrain from discussing the Estimates which are forecasted in the Bills which are to be presented, because those Bills rightly come under the heading, of the Estimates. We ought certainly to have had these Estimates before we went into Committee of Ways and Means. As a rule, you find that those who are responsible for conducting a business do not see how much they can spend before they ascertain the amount of money they have to spend. If they wish to be successful, they cut their cloth according to their measure, and in a country, if you wish to be successful, you must adopt the same principles.
    We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that during the period from 1909 to the end of last year, on the authority of Sir George Paish, there was an estimated increase of national savings of £1,750,000,000. I must take exception to that statement. I do not know that Sir George Paish is anything but a theorist. I absolutely deny that be has any data whatever as to what is the accumulation of the wealth of the country. I think it was the hon. Member (Mr. Chiozza Money) who stated that the accumulation of profits last year was £238,000,000. I have consulted financial authorities—bankers; brokers, and others in the City of London

    771
    —and there are no figures at all which would give any idea as to what the actual accumulation of wealth is in this country or any other. The assumption, therefore, that we are accumulating wealth at this rate no doubt induces the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see how he can dispose of it for us. He naturally thinks that the accumulation of wealth is one of the greatest crimes or misfortunes which can happen. The commerce and industry of this country have been built up, not by the fortunes which have been made by men of industry, but by the savings they have been able to make from the earnings of their businesses. I know from my own experience innumerable great industries in this country which have commenced with a small capital where the founders have been compelled from time to time to borrow money as the industry has grown, and at is by the economies they have made, by stinting themselves for many years of all sorts of luxuries, and by putting the money they have made into these industries, that they have been built up. Had it not been for the great sacrifices they have made, we should never have the prominent position that we have in the commerce of the world as the greatest industrial nation that there is on the face of the earth. The position, however, has changed. To-day the people who built up those great industries have adopted—I do not say it has anything to do with the taxation of the country—different methods, and we see that great industries now have been turned into limited liability companies, and if no encouragement is given to individuals to invest their savings in these great industries, it is very evident that the industries will not continue to prosper and increase as they have done in the past. The tendency of this Government especially to increase direct taxation must necessarily press heavily upon the small people.
    I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the amount at which the Super-tax is to begin, so as to cover people with £3,000 a year That tax must press very heavily indeed on the man who has to provide for his family, and who has to save something every year. It is upon those people at the present time that the industries of this country rely to a great extent for the capital which is necessary to extend the businesses. The very rich people do not suffer anything like so much as the people with moderato incomes, be-
    772
    cause the very rich people have a very much wider sphere in which they can invest their money. I do not say it in any way as a threat, but I say there is a tendency at the present time on the part of people who are possessed of means to send these means away from this country for investment. You have seen in countries such as China, which we term uncivilised, that when people have acquired a certain amount of wealth the Governments have adopted different means to extract that wealth from them, and we find that these people have left the countries to a great extent, and have come to the British Colonies. In cases where the people have remained at home, they live in a style which will not in any way induce the cupidity of the governing classes to take from them what they have. The consequence is that those countries have not prospered, because of the Government methods which have been adopted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he intends to issue a new form of declaration for people who are investing their money abroad. I do not know how that form may be worded, but I do think that it will not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to attach any property which may be outside the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country. The position must necessarily be a very serious one for the Government if they take the step of trying to attach property of that description. You have living and carrying on business in this country a large number of foreigners. If you attempt to attach the property of those foreigners in their own countries, I am afraid you will be involved in political complications with the countries whose nationals they arc, and under those circumstances you will inflict a further burden upon the British subject who has to pay more than the foreigner who is carrying on his business here.
    You have estimated, I think, that last year there was £238,000,000 of the revenue for the year as the net means for investment. I presume that calculation is made upon the basis of the companies which were brought out and floated and for which capital was asked during the year. We all know perfectly well that these; large sums which are presumed to be savings of the year—or, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, £1,750,000,000 from 1909. These sums are supposed to be accumulations. I am afraid that the calculations are absolutely erroneous. You have to take into consideration—and, in

    773
    fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us so himself—that the Government had paid off during their term of office a sum of no less than £100,000,000. That sum appears again in the investments which sire made by the public, and which you supposed to be further accumulations. In the City of London there are maturities of loans every day. These loans are maturing in different countries, and when they are paid off the money is reinvested. We know also that there is an enormous amount of foreign capital invested in this country in every loan almost that is issued. We know from the people who have their connections on the Continent and who do arbitrage business that when a loan is issued in this country they get their orders from the Continent. There is a tendency to increase direct taxation. It is proposed that the Income Tax should be 1s. 4d. in the £, and you will find that those foreigners who have been investing their money in those loans will abstain in future, and the London market which has been the centre of the commercial and financial business of the world will lose that pre-eminent position, and the consequence will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of gaining in his revenue, will find a considerable falling off, because those loans will be issued in other countries. That is a factor which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must take into consideration.
    As to the Bills which the Chancellor will have to introduce in connection with this Budget, to provide for all the purposes for which the money is to be raised, I understand that we must not discuss them too much. I understand also that the Bills are only to come into operation late this year, and that the actual benefit to be derived under them will be very small. I think we all approve of the intention of the Chancellor with respect to national health insurance and the physical development of the community. We on this side of the House deplore as much as anybody on the other side the destitution and the miserable conditions under which our poorer fellows live, and we are as anxious as they are to ameliorate these conditions. There is one suggestion I would like to make which, if carried out, would have enormous effect upon the well-being of the youth of this country, and that is that it would be money well spent if we could have universal training and service. That expenditure would be justified, and nobody on this side of the House would
    774
    resist it in any way. It would create for the poorer classes of this country a training, and it would put them at a period of their life when they are most likely to suffer deterioration in their physique and their morals in a position to have a period of healthy exercise with good food, which would build up their constitution, and do more for them than any amount of slum clearing that is proposed under these Bills.
    So far as expenditure upon the Navy is concerned, I am sorry to hear from the. Chancellor of the Exchequer that he proposes next year to reduce the amount. We on this side of the House look upon that part of the Budget, together with the expenditure on the Army, as most justified. It is the part to which nobody would in anyway refuse to contribute. We look upon it from another point of view, because we consider that an efficient Army and an efficient Navy provide employment for many people who otherwise might be unemployed. If you maintain your programme of construction for the Navy, you are giving employment to the men for whom you have introduced the system of insurance against unemployment, and I consider—and I think the majority of Members on this side of the House consider—that it is better to pay men to do work than to pay men while unemployed. Therefore, the further you go in maintaining the shipbuilding programme, the further you can find employment for men, and the better it is for the country as a whole. So far as the various Bills are concerned, it is impossible for anybody to attempt to criticise them. We can only judge them by some of the past Acts of the Government. The National Insurance Act had to be amended, and we can only expect that the Bills to be introduced will be slip-shod performances, like most measures of the Government. It will be a case of act in haste and repent at leisure. I thank the House for the patient hearing they have given me.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel Samuel) is, I think, his maiden speech. I congratulate him on having made, the first frank and bold protest we have heard on behalf of men of great possessions, and especially great possessions abroad. He stated his case with courage and ability, and I congratulate him upon both those qualities, which are very essential in political life. I do not know that I can follow him into alt the points he has made. I do not know to

    775
    what extent I should be able to do so within the ruling of the Chair, and I shall have to test that by and by. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was full of very lurid expressions as to what had happened in regard to our primacy in the investing market, so far as investments abroad are concerned. He was not in the Parliament of 1909. Had he been he would have exhausted all those predictions then, and he would have had no fresh ones left for the present Budget. But he was perfectly right, since he did not use them all up then, in stating them here. He is one of the few men who are free to do so. All those predictions, every one of them, were uttered against all these taxes—Death Duties, Super-tax, Stamp Duties—because I increased some of the Stamp Duties as well—and I was told that the effect would be most disastrous against the position of this country, as the great investing market of the world. What has been the result? The result has been that this country has been in a better position than ever, as far as that is concerned, notably within the last four or five years. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should use the ingenuity which he evidently possesses, to find out some fresh line of criticism of these particular facts. I shall come by and by to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, but perhaps he will allow me now, at once, to congratulate him upon his speech, which delighted the House, and, although I was the poor victim of his vigorous onslaught, I can assure him that the pleasure which I derived from the performance was greater than any pain that I endured from the castigation. I congratulate him that he still possesses all the volcanic fires of youth, and I do hope, in spite of the menace which he held to my head, that, with his usual good nature, he will conquer the desire which he has to further flagellate me when the time comes.
    I will come to the criticisms in detail later on, because they will fall rather within the category of two or three criticisms with which I hope to deal. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has put forward two suggestions for the consideration of the Government. He does not wish to have an answer without my having an opportunity of further consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the subject, but I will give him my first impression. With regard to
    776
    the Dublin Metropolitan police, I thought he made out what appeared to be a very plausible case, because the Dublin Metropolitan police are more or less in the same position as the police in this country. They are not maintained exclusively by the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, I think that they have a claim for consideration. I was not so much impressed by the case which the hon. Member made for education, but at the same time I can promise him that I will look into the matter further.
    With regard to the Debate generally, I have heard most of the speeches, and I think that I have read them all. There is one thing which struck me very much. In all these speeches hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side sought high and low for some sort of criticism on the Budget proposals, but there is one most notable absence. There has not been a murmur about Tariff Reform as an alternative method of raising revenue. We are raising between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000. Every means which I have adopted for raising that money has been subjected more or less to censure, but there is not a word about this alternative, though the two great champions of Tariff Reform have spoken in this Debate. The Debate was led off by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. He spoke at some length, and he criticised the Budget in detail; but there was not even a hint that the right way to raise the money was by means of protective duties. Tariff Reform is still' chained in its lonely kennel. It is not even allowed to bark, and it is only the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Page-Croft) who goes there with a bone now and again to furnish it with a repast. At least I expected to hear a word about it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon, but there was not a syllable. The duty on corn is gone, and all the duties on manufactured goods. There is no suggestion about them, and yet whatever may be said about this Budget, it is undoubtedly a great challenge of Free Trade to Protection, and I am delighted to note that that challenge at the moment has not been taken up by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the other side. Even the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) has not risen in the Debates up to the present. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has risen!"] I am so sorry that he did not rise before I got up. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did!"] I mean, that he did not speak. Protection has been

    777
    basely deserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire.
    Mr. HUNT: It will come in all right.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate, there is one nurse who will stick to the perambulator. But this desertion of Tariff Reform is worth noting as an indication of the very great change in public opinion.
    I come now to the general character of the criticisms that have been passed upon the Budget. When people dare not assign their real reasons for objecting to a course, their avowed reasons are always confused and contradictory, and that is what I have observed here. Let me give a specimen of the criticisms which have been directed, and not merely a specimen, but a summary. Even the very last speech was a compendium of all the criticisms. First of all, our expenditure is too high. It is too high in total, but it is not enough in detail. Is it too high on the Navy? No; we should spend more. Is the Army to be reduced? Not at all; we should spend more. A suggestion came from the hon. Gentleman that we should embark upon compulsory military service. Well, I cannot see much reduction of expenditure there. The Grants which are being given, the right hon. Gentleman says, are not nearly enough for the rural districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire says that Birmingham is not getting enough. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) asks, What about London? And though I believe that London will get hundreds of thousands of pounds out of these Grants, a great Tory newspaper calls it a miserable pittance. Although the sum total is extravagant, the details are not nearly enough. We ought to spend more. That is the sort of criticism we have had about the expenditure. Now, when we come to taxation, we are told that indirect taxation is too high, and that, if anything, it ought to be reduced. Then, what about direct taxation? A tax on small incomes, I am told, is oppressive. Am I to tax large incomes? Oh, not at all! If I tax large incomes, I am crippling industry. So I must tax neither small incomes nor large incomes.
    Mr. CROFT: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad the hon. Member recognises the fairness of the picture which I am drawing. Then
    778
    let us get on to the Death Duties. Settled land you must not touch, too. It is a breach of contract and an outrage. You must not got Death Duties, either, out of land which is not settled, because there you are taking money out of capital. Now what are you to do? You are to arrange your taxation in such a way that no one bears it and everybody benefits by it I do not believe that any Budget of modern times has ever been subjected to such muddle-headed criticism as the present Budget, and to such confused and contradictory criticism. Two or three hon. Members who have spoken here to-day have raised the cry that when you tax big incomes you are simply depriving people of employment. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) went to Grimsby and said—I take this as an illustration—that he had meant to buy a £900 motor car, but that the moment this Budget came in he cancelled his order, and merely spent £120 on repairing his old motor car. We are to look at all the people who would be employed in making this new motor car. But what the hon. Member does not recollect is this—that the money which is being raised is to be put into the hands of the local authorities for houses and that sort of thing. At the present moment the loss on houses is 20 per cent. of the total cost, so that on that basis his £900 motor car would, even on the present basis, have financed the building of at least twenty cottages. Surely that would employ much more labour than his £900 motor car!
    6.0 P.M.
    The hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Sir A. Henderson), was very sad about the taxation of big incomes, but not because of the rich. He was thinking of his poor constituents. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon took the same point with regard to Death Duties. But when he was doing so I noticed that he claimed the Agricultural Rates Act as having been a great achievement, not merely for the benefit of landowners, but for the benefit of farmers. What he forgets is that the whole of that money came out of Death Duties, every penny of it, so that the hon. Gentleman is claiming as a triumph of finance for the benefit of farmers the great Act of Sir William Harcourt for raising the Death Duties. In this Budget I hope still further to benefit the farmer by the same method, and I venture just to quote a few sentences of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

    779
    Fulham, and I shall do so for this reason: The right hon. Gentleman is the Member of this House who in three consecutive Sessions introduced a Motion, pressing upon the Government the urgency of doing this particular deed. He pressed us every successive year to make substantial Grants to local authorities; he was most anxious that we should do that, and he said that housing was at a standstill, that we could not clear out the slums, that the health of the people was suffering, and that it was all because of this burden of the rates, which paralysed and crippled the local authorities. He promised that if we only made these Grants he would treat the subject in a non-party spirit; he even went to the extent of indicating where we could find the money for these purposes. I will read his speech; he has forgotten it. He said:—
    "There is an amount of national wealth in this country which is not taxed adequately, and which does not pay a sufficient or adequate contribution to national expenditure of that kind. There has been a great appreciation of the personal wealth of this country and that personal wealth has not contributed, in the way realty does, its fair share towards national services, and towards those forms of national expenditure, of which I, for one, should not complain—"
    then why did he complain last week?—
    "but which I wish to see if anything brought to that full fruition which is denied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
    That is the speech which he delivered a year or two ago. What was the speech he delivered last week, when we were doing exactly what he had urged upon us year after year. He starts by saying:—
    "I am much more inclined to treat the mailer from a non-party point of view—"
    but imagine my surprise on reading the next sentence. Instead of thanking the Government for carrying out his proposals, instead of promising his support, he said:—
    "I want to ask, and I want the country to ask, whether we can or cannot afford this very large expenditure."
    It is the very large expenditure, but it is the very expenditure which he had been urging for years. He objects to Income Tax, to Death Duties, to indirect taxation, to raiding the Sinking Fund, and to spending all these Grants. If that is the case, why did he press these matters upon the Government for two or three Sessions? First of all, he poses as the ratepayers' friend, and underneath it all, I am sorry to say, he is a strong and irreconcilable partisan. There is no part of the country which will benefit more than London, and
    780
    I have not the slightest doubt that, if the rates are reduced in consequence of the Grants, he will be the first to claim it for the Moderates on the London County Council.
    Now I come to the criticisms on the particular taxes. There has been the criticism upon the 1s. 4d. tax upon small unearned incomes. I should like, first of all, to point out to the House the difficulties of the Government with regard to that question. There has been an attempt to establish identity or similarity of income, whether earned or unearned. That we cannot accept. The right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) took the case of a person who has inherited an income of £701 a year. Take a man who is earning £701 a year. His income is precarious. It is dependent upon his health, upon his business, or the lack of business, or it may depend upon his having employment. It is exceedingly precarious, and once one of these things breaks down he is left with nothing.
    Take the person who is receiving £701 unearned income. What does that mean? It means that he has an investment of between £15,000 and £17,000. That is a very different income from the income of the person who is earning his income, which depends upon his health, employment, and business. Therefore the Government cannot recognise that earned and unearned income are in the same category. But I should like to carry this a little further. I do not say that is an argument in favour of not making some differentiation in the case of very small unearned incomes. I will, first of all point out to the Committee the difficulties in which the Government are placed in regard to this matter. I can assure hon. Members that it was a matter of great anxiety to me and my colleagues before we introduced the Budget. I recognise the general justice of the demand which is made so far as the very small incomes are concerned. The difficulty is—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester put it very well—that the sheet-anchor of the British Income Tax is collection at the source. The moment that breaks down more than one-half of our Income Tax vanishes. The reason why the Income Tax of this country is more successful in the matter of collection than in any other country in the world where it has been tried is because of this collection at the source. As long as you

    781
    have collection at the source you cannot distinguish in the rate of collection. For instance, you cannot ask a banker, before he deducts Income Tax out of dividends, to find out the person's ability to pay—whether he has £300, £500, or £1,000, or £1,500 a year. That is impossible. It would completely smash the whole machinery of collection at the source. The only way to deal with it is after the amount has been deducted. There are two ways of doing that. One way we have already adopted. The case of the widow and children was put in the course of the Debate. I think that is the hardest case of all. If a widow has £300, or £400, or £500 a year, and has three or four small children to bring up, that is a very hard case indeed. We meet that case by doubling the allowance with respect to the children, so that, so far as the majority of that class are concerned—those under £500—they are better off now than they were before. There are still others who, I admit frankly, have a grievance which presses upon them hardly.
    The only way of meeting it is by extending the rebates by allowing them to make claims for rebates. Let me point out what that means, and, once I have pointed it out, the responsibility rests with the Committee. There are a good many claims now for rebate, running into scores, and very nearly hundreds and thousands of cases, which involve the keeping up of a great stall to examine the claims, and, the moment you began to discriminate between the unearned incomes above a certain limit and the incomes below that limit, you would have to increase very considerably your staff. There would be the old charge of a "horde of officials." [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] There you are; it begins now. In this case a horde of officials would be established, it is true, not to collect, but to give rebates and exemptions. Having pointed out that, let me say what the Government are prepared to do. The Government are prepared to leave persons whose total unearned income is £500 and under exactly where they were before—at 1s. 2d. I think we can go further than that. Once we have established the principle, once we are prepared to set up this staff, it will not make very much difference, so far as the expense of scrutiny is concerned. Persons with £500 and under will pay exactly as before, and persons with £300 and under will pay 2d. less than before—that will be 1s. on £300 and under and 1s. 2d. on £500
    782
    and under. We cannot go beyond that, because it would be far too much for the Exchequer, and somebody would have to make up for the deficiency. The full cost will be £370,000 a year, but this year it will not cost half of that, because the examination of the claims takes a considerable time, and we shall take the amount out of the Exchequer Balances for this year.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman as to the new staff or the necessity of delay of which he speaks. Must not all these people, with the limited incomes of which he has spoken already, have the right to claim abatement, and therefore have had to make a return of full income, which return has already, in past years, had to be examined by the existing staff, and why should there, be any delay or any further staff required to examine the same number of claims merely because they are entitled to claim a larger abatement?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that that was the first question I asked myself. The explanation is this: At the present moment it is not worth while for a good many people to put in their claims, because it is not a question of the two classes, after all. Those who have earned income may also have considerable unearned incomes, and very often the exemption comes from the earned part of the Income Tax. The deduction being from the earned part of the income, in many of those cases there would be no claim at all at the present moment. But the moment you make a reduction of the rate, then they all claim. Is that clear?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAINdissented.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You take the deduction of £160 from a man's income before you begin to make out what his Income Tax is. That deduction is made first from the earned part of a man's income, and, therefore, for the unearned there is no claim at all in respect of it. The moment, however, that you begin to make a deduction from the total, and to differentiate in the rates, then all will begin to put in their claims.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Everybody who makes a claim has to make a return of the total income from all sources, and that has to be examined by the Inland Revenue authority before he is allowed the abatement of £160 or any other sum.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a totally different claim. The man with an earned income, is taxed upon that basis. That is not a claim of rebate, and his is a claim of rebate which is a totally different thing. He has paid in the first instance and afterwards claims the money back. He pays in the first instance on the basis of deduction, and, therefore, he never makes a claim. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the claims will go up, by the figures which were given to me, to a prodigious extent, and that the figures would probably quadruple, if not quintruple, the total number of claims. That is their view. I am just hoping that they are taking rather a pessimistic view, but I am bound to take from the officials of one of the ablest Departments in this country the forecast which they make. I am not exaggerating the difficulty in order to find any reason for not doing it, but I am only pointing out the difficulty, in order to show the reason why we hesitated doing anything which would impair the efficiency of one of the best machines, and I think on the whole the fairest machine, for the extraction of revenue in this country.
    I come now to the Settlement Estate Duty. The appeal with which I have some sympathy is the case where a man by will gives his property to his wife for life and afterwards to his children. There is a good deal to be said for that arrangement. He wants the enjoyment of the property to be given to the wife during her life. He may be an old man, and she may be old, and he does not like to take away from her the enjoyment of the income while she lives. That is a case which requires very special consideration, I admit, and I promise to give it full consideration, but I should like to make a little more inquiry, so as to draw a line clearly between that case and the other case. That is not the ordinary case of Settlement Estate Duty. The ordinary case of Settlement Estate Duty is the case where there is discrimination in favour of settled property. That, I think, is indefensible. The right hon. Gentleman himself did not defend it. He admits that on the merits, apart from the point of contract, which he put with great force, there is absolutely no case for discriminating in favour of settled land as against other property which has not been settled. The right hon. Gentleman said there is a contract. He suggested that we should recognise the case where there has been what he called
    784
    the basis of a contract, and that we should begin from to-day not to charge that 2 per cent. franking fee, and collecting our duty on settled land, just like on any other property. I would point out what that means. I should lose both ways by that. I should lose the whole of the franking fee of 2 per cent.; that would be gone, and I should not begin to get the benefit of it, nor would any other Chancellor of the Exchequer for nearly a generation. I should lose £1,000,000 straight away of income, and in addition to that eight or nine hundred thousand pounds of the new tax now proposed to put on. That means a loss of £2,000,000, and unless the financial genius of the right hon. Gentleman can suggest something better than that, I am afraid it is not very helpful to a Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficulties—with a deficiency.
    I come to the question of contract. I cannot recognise that when a duty or tax is put on which specially favours a particular class, that a contract is established between the revenue and that class. That is an indefensible position, and once you begin to contend it, you will find the revene will be fettered at every turn. You have only got to have a Government in power which favours a particular class, and which makes an arrangement in favour of that class, and when the other Government comes in you cannot alter it, as it is a contract, and it would be a breach of faith to alter it. Will the right hon. Gentleman believe that that was exactly the argument that was used in the days of the abolition of the Corn Laws. Those who defended the Corn Laws said, "This is a contract, and on the basis of that contract we cut up our grass lands and converted them to wheat lands."
    Mr. CROFT: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And the kindly cheer of the hon. Member warns us what would happen. The same thing would apply to a duty on manufactures. The manufacturer would say, "I have laid down machinery on the strength of a bargain which I entered into with the State," and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, it was the argument that was advanced against the Wilson tariff in the United States of America. That is a most dangerous argument for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit. There is a much stronger case there with regard to Protection than there is with regard to settled

    785
    estate duty. There, undoubtedly, capital is invested not on the strength of a contract, but on the strength of the prospect which is opened out. There is no capital invested here beyond the 2 per cent. which is paid for franking. Let me carry it a little further. Some of this settled land will derive benefit from the very cash which we are raising to the extent at any rate of 15 per cent. of the charge upon it out of public rates. Suppose half the charges were taken off, as they were in 1896 by the right hon. Gentleman's Agricultural Eating Act, off agricultural land, does anyone mean to contend that in a transaction of that character, although half the charges were taken off at the expense of other people; that settled land could not be called on to contribute, and that the whole burden should fall on other people? That is an utterly indefensible proposition, and I cannot accept it. The first case to which I referred is on a totally different footing. But as far as Settlement Estate Duty is concerned, the Government must adhere to the position which they have taken up. Those are the two taxes to which I specially wanted to call attention. With regard to the other taxes, there has been really no criticism. The hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. S. Samuel) is the only one who up to the present has offered any criticism of any of the other taxes. He has criticised the Income Tax upon foreign investment, but as far as the rest of the Debate is concerned, we have had no criticism at all of the other taxes.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are you going to say anything about the new Income Tax on income reinvested abroad.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman challenge it because he thinks it will be more?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad to hear it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman will see the importance of that, because it means he has got money to play with, and he cannot defend all his other taxes on the ground that he cannot afford to give money.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose he had to meet a great deficiency, and let us assume now that all the expenditure is justifiable because it is necessary for the purpose of this argu-
    786
    ment, and that he had to face it, would he, standing at this Box, be prepared to risk his finance on the assumption that he would get very much more—I will not say ultimately, but this year or next year, out of that particular tax? I should be Very surprised if he would. I do not say that ultimately we will not get that. I think we shall—in fact, I have very little doubt about it. But that will be a matter of some time. What I have to do is to face an immediate deficiency for next year, or, at any rate, I have to contemplate a deficiency next year, and I do not think any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified in coming to the conclusion that immediately he would get anything like the whole revenue which he expects ultimately to get from that tax.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned the larger figure which he gave us as the ultimate figure. If lie meant it only as the figure for next year, I cannot conceive how he can stop at that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There, of course, I am acting on advice, arid that advice I have got from men of much more experience in estimating these things, and who, up to the present, have been extraordinarily accurate in the estimate they have, given—in fact, it is a marvel to me the almost scientific accuracy with which they are able to forecast revenues which are dependent on so many contingencies. That is the forecast they have given to me. I do not mind telling the light hon. Gentleman that I have known of very competent authorities taking the view he takes, and it cheers my heart to hear it. At any rate. I could not go in the face of my advisers and come to the conclusion and base my Budget on the assumption that we would get much more. I come to another point of criticism, the criticism that the sketch I gave of the Budget proposals involved legislation that would keep us here for a number of weary months. The right hon. Gentleman and I have had some experience of that with regard to Budgets, and I am perfectly certain neither he nor I want to repeat it. It took years off outlives, though I hope we have recovered them since. I therefore have a personal interest in not embarking upon any scheme which would involve the introduction of Bills which would occupy our time until the late autumn, and I do not think that it will be necessary. May I say here with regard to the scheme that it is very difficult within

    787
    the limits of a Budget speech to state the whole of the proposals. I could only state just enough to indicate what I wanted the money for, because, after all, the bulk of the legislation which will deal with this will be in the hands of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Secretary for Scotland. But this much I did indicate. I indicated two things, and I mean to repeat them now because it is necessary to do so in order to explain what legislation will be necessary. I indicated that in the opinion of the Government these Grants will not be distributed until one or two clearly defined conditions had a statutory recognition, and that we thought it would be positively mischievous to raise huge sums of money and distribute them without any conditions amongst local authorities in the form of doles. It would be the endowment of one class, and, what is still more, the rearrangement of local taxation, and especially the readjustment of local valuation, which every man who has had any experience of local work knows to be essential, would be put off for ever.
    You cannot deal with these problems except there is money to be voted from the Exchequer, because it enables you to ease the process and to put it through without prejudicially affecting certain interests. Therefore, we thought it essential that there should be two or three conditions before the money is distributed. The first is, that we should insist, as part of the scheme of distribution, that there should be an equitable valuation of property, subject to local taxation, which should assess properties at their real value and differentiate between improvements and site value. In the second place, there should be statutory provisions inserted in a measure of this Session, before any money is distributed, that when that valuation is completed the relief shall be granted exclusively in respect of improvements and not of site. That is a guarantee that the site owner qua site owner will not get the benefit. If he gets it, it will be because he has improved the site. The landlord who spends a large sum of money in improving the site will benefit; when he has not done so, he will derive no benefit. The third point is, that there should be provisional arrangements for the distribution of the money in the meantime. Our
    788
    view is that the valuation will be sufficiently advanced to enable the money to be distributed on the basis of improvements and site for the second half of the financial year 1915. In the meantime provisional arrangements will be made for distribution. What does that involve in the way of legislation this year? It involves only the establishment of these two conditions: First of all, you must have provisions to adjust the present valuation to the purposes of local taxation—not a very big task, as I shall be able to point out. There was a Clause of that kind in the Revenue Bill of last year. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, in reintroducing the Revenue Bill, will embody further Clauses of a like character, enabling us to proceed immediately with a national valuation for local taxation purposes.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Will that apply to England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Ireland is in the hands of the Dublin Parliament—at least, will be, I hope.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Do the Government propose in their new Bill to enact that all the assessments made by the various assessment committees and municipal authorities are no longer to stand, and that the Government assessment will supersede them all?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The proposal will be more or less on the lines of the Bill introduced some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman himself—a Bill which I was very sorry at the time that he abandoned, and which proposed to set up a valuation that did supersede the existing system.
    Mr. LONG: No; my Bill proposed to create a new local assessment authority on which representatives of the Government could sit, but there was no proposal in that Bill to supersede by a Government valuation the assessments already arrived at by the local assessment committees and the county councils.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to put my memory in opposition to that of the right hon. Gentleman about his own Bill, but I have been refreshing my memory quite recently, and I have no doubt at all that the proposal there was that there should be a fresh valuation.
    Mr. LONG: Certainly. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that it is a point of great importance. The question I am asking is not whether there is to be a new assessment; that is quite obvious; but whether the new assessment which is to be made by a Government Department is to supersede the assessment now made by law by the local authorities.
    Mr. CROOKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose a new Department to overlook the local assessments to see that there are not too many sympathetic assessments?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which he must see is completely outside my Department. I was only indicating generally what the legislation would be. I understand the right hon. Gentleman now to admit the point that I made first. He admits that the new assessment, by whomever made, must supersede the old?
    Mr. LONG: Quite right.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I misunderstood the point. But he has put a second point as to whether the local authorities would be interested in the process of making the assessment. Certainly, I understand the local authorities will be interested; at the same time, the general recommendations of the Kempe Committee will be followed to the extent that the present land valuation will be utilised for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman is putting a question to me about a Bill which will not be introduced by me, but by a totally different Department.
    Mr. LONG: I quite agree. But my question arose out of the right hon. Gentleman's original statement that the Government hoped that the new valuation would be sufficiently advanced to make it applicable in the second half of 1915, and that provisional arrangements were to be made for the meantime. What I want to know is, do the Government contemplate passing in this Session a Bill bringing a new system into operation by 1915, and therefore automatically putting an end to all existing assessments, which are made, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, not annually, but over a period of years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman asks whether it will automatically put an end at the present moment to existing valuations, of course
    790
    it will not. It will put an end to the existing valuations the moment the new valuation is ready to take its place. That is all. The assumption of the Government is that the new valuation will be sufficiently advanced in October, 1915, to enable us to rely upon it. But the light hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no new valuation comes into operation immediately, even under the present system. You do not really settle the whole of the valuation very often for years. I remember perfectly well when a new valuation was made in our Union it took three or four years to establish. Therefore I am simply referring to the provisional valuation upon which you have to operate until all the appeals have been settled. I hope I have made that point clear. If I have not, I shall be glad to reply to any questions that may be put.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to sweep away the whole of our Scottish system of valuation? Does he, as a matter of fact, tax on the capital valuation and not on the annual rent?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. Baronet is entitled to ask me questions on a Bating Bill with which I shall have nothing to do.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: But it is part of your proposal.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not really It is part of my proposal to the extent that I have to give a general indication of the lines to be pursued; but that surely does not mean that every Bill to be introduced for the purpose of carrying out that proposal I have to prepare and have ready at the present moment. As a matter of fact, I should not be in order, and I thank you very much, Mr. Whitley, for allowing me to go so far.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state on what principle the money will be distributed this year, before the new valuations come in?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question which would certainty be ruled out of order. If I could go into the whole question of allocation of funds, I should have a good deal to say; but on that question I have taken the opinion of the Chair, and should be glad to take it now.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the interjections to go on, because they illus-

    791
    trate so well exactly what I foresaw a few days ago, namely, that if we went too far into the nature of the other Bills that are to come after, we should spend all our time on them, and practically none on the taxes to be raised. I do not want to be overstrict with the Committee, but I think hon. Members will see that with regard to the details of those measures we must wait until the legislation is introduced.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We quite recognise your ruling, and I am sure all of us desire to abide by it, but surely it must be relevant that, in connection with the Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say in what way he proposes to spend the money which he is now raising. I am afraid he only made use of you, Sir, to avoid doing so.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I shall not allow myself to be made use of in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On a point of Order. Surely the question of the distribution this year is not a matter for a Bill not yet introduced, but a matter for the Finance Bill to be based upon these Resolutions?
    Sir W. RYLAND ADKINS: Without making any imputation upon my right hon. Friend, if he could give us, in the words he has used, a "general indication" of the actual relief during the current year and its distribution, surely that would not be out of order in connection with the opinion we are to form as to the propriety of this taxation.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right, and that is what I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be doing—giving a general indication. Of course, we cannot discuss new Clauses which will be necessary in future Bills.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very sorry to have to revert to what, I think, after all, was an observation rather unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. So far from my desiring not to do so, I was fully prepared to do it, and I consulted the Chair in advance as to whether I could. I meant to give the House of Commons the fullest particulars, and even to give cases which I have worked out showing how it would work. I consulted the Chair upon that, but I could not go into it for the
    792
    simple reason that it would open out a great general Debate.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry that he considers that what I said was meant offensively to him. I did not mean it so. What I meant was that, in my opinion, the questions which he was asked came within the scope of the Bill now to be introduced, and that we ought to have a very clear indication of the way in which the money was to be used.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the very next step I was going to take. I have already stated that I have obtained the ruling of the Chair upon the limits. I have that ruling, and I mean to confine myself strictly to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) stated that he had not the least knowledge of the purposes for which the money is to be voted. That is really a remarkable statement, because, at any rate, I have given a general indication of how the money will be spent. First of all, I took the money for Poor Law purposes. I followed the Kempe Committee, which gave a most exhaustive account of what would be done. I stated how the money would be applied for Poor Law purposes, and I then came to the question of main roads. I stated the way in which the money for main roads would be arrived at—one-half for first-class roads, one-fourth for second-class roads, and nothing for district roads. So the right hon. Gentleman knows that about main roads. I even stated who would classify the roads. As to police, I stated that in future half the cost would be contributed out of Imperial taxation. The same with regard to criminal prosecutions. The whole of the cost with regard to cattle disease I said would be borne by the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have read what I stated, otherwise he would not have maintained that he had not the least notion of how the money would be applied.
    I then came to the question of education, and I there stated the general principles upon which the money would be distributed. They were stated at great length by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education last year. I stated that the two principles were these: With regard to education, the bulk of the money would go for the relief of the poorer districts and the districts in which the expendi-

    793
    ture on education was the highest. I have stated since, in answer to questions, that the small schools Grants would also be renewed in accordance with the advice of the Kempe Committee, that being for the special benefit of the rural districts. The only Grant of which I did not give the basis of distribution was the Public Health Grant. That will have some reference to services, and also some reference to needs. I cannot go beyond that within the limits of the Chairman's ruling, but I think I can give a general indication, perhaps, of the principles by which we arrived at that basis. The first is that half the expenditure upon public health officers, like the medical officers of health, sanitary officers, veterinary officers, and others, will be borne by the Exchequer.
    Mr. LONG: That is an extension of the present Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I think that will cost about £300,000—I am speaking from memory. In regard to the balance there will be two elements to be brought into account. The element which the Kemp Committee recommended should be considered was the element of population. We think that will be unfair to the poorer districts, and we also think it would be unfair to the agricultural districts.
    Mr. LONG: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought that would please the right hon. Gentleman. For that reason there is also an element which is to be brought in, and that is the element of the number of small houses under the £20 assessment for Inhabited House Duty. That will favour the rural districts to a very considerable extent, and it will favour also the poorer districts. I have been asked a question about various districts. The right hon. Gentleman opposite gave the House the case of the Holland Division of Lincolnshire. There is one thing which I would complain of in the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that in quoting that case he called it a typical case. He must know that it is an extreme case.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I said I took it as the case of a typical agricultural county—meaning by that that it was almost and entirely an agricultural county.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not really a typical agricultural county.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: Yes.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I would, not challenge any statement he might make on agriculture, because he is the greatest authority in this House on the; subject. [Laughter.] I mean what I say. At the same time, I have had a recent opportunity, and my right hon. Friend beside me has had the opportunity, oil examining the figures for several typical, counties, and the Holland Division of Lincolnshire is a most exceptional case. It is a case where there is an unusual proportion, I think, of agricultural land of a rather high value. You have got small holdings there. The rates have not gone up very considerably. I have been examining that case, and it is not typical in any respect. We have examined the case of Wiltshire, Somersetshire, Oxfordshire, and Cambridgeshire. I think any Member of this House will admit that on the whole these are fairly typical English agricultural counties, taking them through and through. My right hon. Friend at my side tells me that he has also examined some others. I think, on the whole, that Somerset is the one which comes out worst, Somerset will receive something like a reduction of 3d. in the £. But let me warn, the Committee that, it is very difficult at the present time definitely to state what the amount will be, and for this reason: It depends upon the classification of the roads and the classification of the roads, of course, depends on what the Road Board will do. We have not got their opinion. Before these figures—to use a famous phrase, which I hope will not be considered provocative by the House—before we put these figures to the proof, I hope that the actual amounts will be arrived at. I have no inducement at the present moment either to exaggerate or underestimate, but rather to arrive at the exact figure, and I should like the figures to be verified.
    I now come to Oxfordshire, which is also a case in point. In Oxfordshire a penny rate produces about £3,000. The net gain to this county under our proposals will be about £14,000, or the produce of something like a 4½d. rate. In Cambridgeshire, a penny rate produces £3,000, and this county under these proposals will get about £20,000, or the produce of a 6½d rate. In Wiltshire, a penny rate, I believe, produces £5,780. Wiltshire will have a net gain out of this Grant of something like £47,000. Wiltshire, which is a typical agricultural county, as the right hon. Gen-

    795
    tleman knows, will gain very considerably; but in Wiltshire, I think there is a very enterprising county council, and, of course, counties which have not spent money on public health or education cannot really come to Parliament and ask for Grants-in-Aid, and expect to get the same contribution as others who have spent money! The only thing that will be guaranteed by our scheme is this: that no county and no union in the county will be a penny the worse by the abolition of the Agricultural Eating Act, so' that even if the right hon. Gentleman establishes his case in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, the Holland Division will not lose a penny. Of course, I do not know very much what money has been spent there on education, and upon public health. There may have been reasons, special or otherwise, apart from that, why they will not derive any profit or gain out of the money which is to be distributed. What I wish to say is this: that towns, at least some towns, will naturally get a higher Grant in proportion to the population, and why? Because they have spent more upon their services, and the counties that have done well and shown enterprise will naturally get the greatest relief, and for a very good reason.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: They will get lower than the towns?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Because the rates are less. You cannot compare a county which is paying 4s. 6d. with a town. Here are the rates for the Division to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. In 1896 houses and land paid 2s. 8d. They are now paying 3s. 6d. for a house alone, while agricultural land is paying 1s. 9d. agricultural land is paying considerably less than it did in 1896, before the right hon. Gentleman made his Grant. The double rate has gone up. You cannot very well compare a district like that with districts which are rated at eight, nine and ten shillings in the pound, and come forward and demand that a district like that should get exactly the same measure of relief. There is no fairness in the demand at all. To my mind the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. CHAPLIN: It is very difficult, indeed, impossible for me—to-day in particular, hearing worse than I usually do—really to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his replies. But he misunderstands me altogether. I asked the question to-day for the purpose of being able to make a
    796
    comparison between the Grants which are received now and those that are to be received. What I call a typical agricultural county is one in this sense: one which is almost purely agricultural, where agriculture is practically the main and chief industry in it. Now, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman understands why I used that illustration. I asked another question for the purpose of comparison between what is received under the existing Grants, and what is the estimate under the proposals of the Departmental Committee for that particular place. I make no complaint about it, or about the amounts at present received. So far as I know they receive a very fair share at present. What I wanted to know was, how would the district fare under the new proposals when the present agricultural Grant is taken away? I understood from the answer given to me this afternoon that not even an approximate estimate of what it is going to receive can be made. It was of that I complained. We are asked to vote all these enormous sums without knowing how they are to be distributed.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After that very effective interruption of the right hon. Gentleman I do not think I will pursue the matter any further—
    An HON. MEMBER: You never do.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a very rude observation. I desire to verify the figures, and I thought I was treating the right hon. Gentleman with great courtesy. I was going to say I will not pursue the matter any further except to say this: That I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he did not mean to use the word "typical" in the sense of its being simply—
    Mr. CHAPLIN: No, no.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is all I want to know. I think it is a very important point. I am not prepared to challenge what the right hon. Gentleman said about it being a purely agricultural district, because he knows it so thoroughly. So long as he agrees with me that it is not a typical agricultural county in the financial sense then there is no quarrel between us.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I venture to confirm that. It is one of the very few counties where the rating of the land is actually in excess of the rateable value of all the other hereditaments. That is why I took it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Now I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to establish. The only other case where a Bill may be necessary is a Bill—not a Bill of any magnitude—with regard to the insurance branch. Those are the only measures necessary to be carried this year—the Finance Bill, the Revenue and Valuation Bill, and perhaps an Insurance Bill for the purpose of incorporating some of the provisions which I have indicated.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What about education?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to deduction, a Bill is not essential for the purpose of Grant. Whether or not there is to be an Education Bill for other purposes is a totally different matter. That is not for me to answer about.
    7 0 PM.
    I should like to say a word now if the Committee will give me their indulgence— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have been subjected to a process of cross-examination—of which I am not complaining—but which has prolonged my observations much longer than I intended—I should like to say a word about Debt. The night hon. Gentleman was extraordinarily severe about a suspension of any portion of the Sinking Fund. He rather talked about himself with the airs of an austere economist. You might have imagined that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to which he belonged in the past had been that of paying off debts for years, and no one would have thought that the Government to which he belonged had added £100,000,000 to the National Debt, and that even during times of peace they had not liquidated half as much debt, on the average, in times of peace, as we are making provision for this year. So I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite in a position to criticise us upon that subject. There was one thing the right hon. Gentleman said that I should like to answer now. He said that the last year he was Chancellor of the Exchequer the fixed debt was very much higher than we propose it should be this year. Yes, the fixed debt charge as always high, but so were the new bonds. It is just like the case of a man who says, "Look at me paying off the mortgages of my estate." But he never tells anybody that he does so by means of increasing the overdraft at the bank. No amount of criticism or juggling or pedantry can get rid of this one fact: That during the years we
    798
    have been in Office we wiped out £104,000,000 of National Debt, and that the provisions we are now making will enable us to have wiped out nearly £115,000,000. That is the reserve for war which we have been piling up, although I do not see why we should always be contemplating the prospect of quarrelling with our neighbours.
    With regard to the general charge of extravagance made against us, let the right hon. Gentleman think of the position we are in compared with our Continental neighbours. We have had two deficits in this country during the last five or six years. So had our great neighbours, but their deficits were entirely attributable to armaments. Two thirds of the money we have raised has gone to the work of social reconstruction. The whole of this extra money—almost certainly two or three millions—is going to the purpose of social reform, and some of this money is transferred from one service to another. It does not represent an increase at all in national indebtedness or taxation. During the whole of this time all our deficiencies were attributable to the work of social reform. We have been paying debt while they have been increasing it. There is another factor you have to take into consideration when you come to high expenditure. There is the question of retrenchment. Retrenchment is not a matter entirely of the amount which you spend, but of the objects on which you spend it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Certainly any business man—and the hon. Member claims to be a business man—knows perfectly well if his estimate shows that this year he is spending £10,000, whilst ten years ago he was only spending £500, he may be doing better. The first thing he has to ask himself is is that £10,000 reproductive, and is he not making more by the expenditure of the £10,000 than he made by the expenditure of £500? If he is, the additional expenditure is the best economy. In the course of these Debates expenditure upon armaments seems to be regarded as the only expenditure that is economic. You can be extravagant so long as it is on the old well worn ruts of extravagance. [A laugh.] I do not see why the hon. Member should laugh. I am trying to state the facts. He thinks it is amusing. It is suggested that so long as expenditure is along the old well worn ruts of extravagance then it is legitimate. No additional expenditure can possibly be

    799
    justified unless it is on armaments. That is all the criticism I heard in the course of these Debates.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Not all.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am referring to hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member is not yet opposite, and I say that every criticism which I heard from every hon. Gentleman opposite was criticism which rather condemned the reduction of armaments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) spoke of the greatest vice of the Budget. What was the greatest vice of the Budget? That I held out the prospect, OD the strength of Admiralty advice, that there might be reduction next year. He condemned that. I was told that the business of the Exchequer is to watch expenditure, to criticise it, to cut it down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer that. I was supposed to be fighting against the Navat Estimates. I do not know where all this information about the Cabinet comes from, but I was supposed to be doing what is the duty of every Chancellor of the Exchequer in examining great estimates when there is an increase. There was not a Tory paper in the land which did not condemn me without knowing the ground. They knew nothing of the Estimates, or of the grounds of criticism, yet a Member of the late Government said, "Whatever expenditure the Admiralty asks for we will back up the Liberal Government." That is their view on this question of the Army and the Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Yes, because it is necessary." Is not expenditure on the health of the people necessary? I am told I am indulging in high expenditure which is indefensible because I am spending money but not upon the Navy or the Army. I am encouraged to spend it on the Navy and the Army, and I am criticised if I exercise my light, and discharge my duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am condemned, and I am called a Little Englander—but when it is a question of spending money on clearing out slums and on public health, then it is I am doing a thing that, forsooth, I ought never to have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said so?"] What is the condemnation of the expenditure, then? This is expenditure upon improved education, upon public health, upon public roads—they are not criticised; on the contrary, the demand is that
    800
    the sum ought to be more. Very well. The criticism is, therefore, of the expenditure on the ground of public health and education. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If not, what is the criticism? The right hon. Gentleman opposite said something: about mixing finance with sentiment. What is the sentiment? Is building good; houses for the working classes sentiment? Is improved education sometime it? Is the stamping out of tuberculosis a matter of sentiment? All these are the most practical things for which any Minister could ever consider. That is not mixing finance with sentiment. It is mixing duty with the best business any Minister could undertake. The right hon. Gentleman opposite in his speech appealed to the best memories of the past, greater, as he said, than either himself or myself. Of course, I admit that. But has he ever read what some of these great men said about this problem? Does he remember a great Conservative leader promulgating a policy for his party in 1872? What did Mr. Disraeli say in his famous speech in Manchester in 1872? He said this:—
    "In attempting to legislate upon social reform, the great object is to the practicable."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I thought that would be cheered. Now listen to what practical legislation is:—
    "To have before his some distinct aim and distinct means by which they can be accomplished. Gentlemen, I think public attention as regards these matters ought to be concentrated upon sanitary legislation. Gentlemen, I cannot impress upon you too strongly my conviction of the importance of legislature and society uniting together in favour of these important results. After all, the first consideration of a Minister should he the health of the people."
    It was not sentiment in those days; it was the business of the Minister, and' when a Minister stands here and proposes that four millions or five millions of money should be expended on the very purposes which Mr. Disraeli said was the the first business of a Minister, his degenerate successors, one after another, start up and protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think there is a very great change at the Exchequer since the great days when he was there. There is a change, I admit. I admit, there is a great change, but it is not a change for which I am responsible. It is a change in the conditions of this country—a vital change, a fundamental change and a change which, every Minister is bound to take note of. The right hon. Gentleman thinks if he came back to the Exchequer to-morrow all he would have, to do. is to sit in this chair and work out,

    801
    how to find more money for the demands of the Army and Navy, how he is to readjust taxation—stripped tobacco, and things of that sort, and what he is to do with the Sinking Fund, and, if he was in u very bold and enterprising mood, I have no doubt at all he would introduce some sort of tariff. But if he thinks that is going to be his function when he comes there he is greatly mistaken. National finance is up against the world; a new world has to be developed. What is it? The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the Education Acts of the last forty years have effected an enormous change in the actions of the people towards the Government. In the old days the people lived in poor houses, overcrowded, in ill-health; they took all the risks of life without any help from the State; they suffered unemployment, sickness, old age; their children were starving, and they thought it was the dispensation of Providence and that they were bound to suffer. They are educated to-day as their masters were fifty years ago. They know so far from this being a Divine decree, it is on the contrary the mismanagement of men. They mean to demand a change, and they are coming to the House they command, which they realise for the first time their power over. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends think that the murmurs of insurrection can only be heard in Ulster. He is mistaken. There is a revolt surging up around him in this country amongst millions of men against their conditions, and unless the rich, the opulent people in this country are prepared in time to make sacrifices to lift their less favoured fellow citizens out of their wretchedness, a day will come, and it will come soon, when they will look back again with amazement and with regret to the days when they protested against paying 1s. 4d. extra insurance against revolution, when it came from the Government.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: As hon. Members know, speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are by no means easy to follow. The right hon. Gentleman seems to claim a monopoly in the desire to improve the conditions of the people. He seems to have discovered to-day what for the last two or three years the Government have been refusing to realise, that the housing problem is urgent and pressing, and the only answers—excepting perorations such as we have listened to to-day from the Government Benches—have been taunts that the proposals to
    802
    provide good housing for the poor were proposals which were charity in bricks and mortar. Today, it has suited the right hon. Gentleman to give us the other mood in which he has shown himself desirous also of assisting in the better housing of the people. I will not pursue that point. I will deal, if I may, with another part of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was chiding us just now for not having stated the truth and the whole truth about some of the complaints we have been making about him. The right hon. Gentleman stands up at that box and says, "Whatever you think of my tax, and the means by which I am proposing to raise the money, whatever you think of the expenditure which I am committing the nation to, do not forget that I hold the record in debt reduction and that my Government have paid off £104,000,000 of our total indebtedness." He forgets that £13,000,000 of that was money supplied by the last year of the Administration of the Unionist Government, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was responsible for the finances of this country. The real fact is that this Government has not paid off £104,000,000 of debt, but they have reduced the dead-weight debt by £92,000,000. The truer comparison really is the amount of reduction of the total capital liabilities, and that amounts not to £104,000,000, but to £82,000,000.
    Let us pursue that point a little further. How has that debt been repaid? When the Liberal Government came into office they found that the Unionist Government had fixed the capital taxes, or Death Duties, at a rate which brought in about £13,000,000 a year. Since the Liberal Government has been in power they have increased the Death Duties, or capital taxes, by means of increases and the ordinary growth of their produce until the Liberal Government has received £73,000,000 of extra capital taxes beyond the capital taxes which were at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire. So that in regard to the £82,000,000 which is the principal figure redeemed by the Liberal Government, as to £73,000,000 of the capital taxes they have received that amount in excess of the capital taxes available to the previous Unionist Government. The right hon. Gentleman told us nothing about that. With regard to the balance, how has that been redeemed? Not by the

    803
    virtue of the right hon. Gentleman and the policy of the Liberal Government, but by the luck of having surpluses which went to the Old Sinking Fund. In the period the Liberal Government has been in power between £20,000,000 and £25,000,000 of surpluses have gone to the Old Sinking Fund, and this has enabled the right hon. Gentleman to redeem the rest of the capital liabilities of which he has been boasting. The right hon. Gentleman has done this by raiding the Old Sinking Fund. In 1908–9 he raided that Sinking Fund of about 40 per cent. of the amounts which ought to have been placed in it. In a subsequent year, 1911–12, he raided the Sinking Fund again to the extent of about 60 per cent. of the amount that ought to have been put into it. Last year he began to "jockey" with the Exchequer balances. There was £1,000,000 left over in the Exchequer balances, which ought to have gone to the Old Sinking Fund, and it was kept out, together with another £500,000, for a purpose to which it was not applied, and it remained in the Exchequer balances.
    The right hon. Gentleman came clown to the House with a Budget that did not balance by about £815,000, and he used that £1,000,000 of Exchequer Balances in order to balance his Budget. He denied it at the time. He said he was not budgetting for a deficiency, that it was not within the expenditure of the year, and he was justified in using it. That is not what he said last Monday when he came down here, because he quite forgot that he had laid down that proposition last year, and he told the House that this year he was most fortunate, because last year he had to budget for a deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman will find that in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There was a deficit last year, which he could only make good by using the Exchequer Balances. I want the right hon. Gentleman to again consider the question of the Settled Estate Duty. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman says he is going to consider the case, which was a very usual one with professional men and the trading class, of a man giving his property to his wife for life and his children afterwards. That is the ordinary will of professional men and the trading class. In that case I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to consider the hardship which under his previous proposal would arise. I will take the case of a professional man or a mem-
    804
    ber of the trading class who has accumulated out of his own earning a small fortune of £20,000. The rate of Death Duty to-day is 6 per cent. and the Settled Estate Duty to be paid on the death of that man is 2 per cent. That amount will frank the estate, so that on the death of his wife no further Succession Duty is payable when the estate passes on to the children, although there is an additional 1 per cent. duty.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so. There is no 2 per cent. paid in those cases.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is it not a fact that 2 per cent. is paid now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says he is sure on that point, I will accept his statement.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the ordinary case of a will of that kind there is no 2 per cent. paid, and it is not the Settled Estate Duty that I am dealing with.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that no difference will be made when the children succeed to an estate? If he says so, he will relieve a good deal of anxiety.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There never has been 2 per cent. taken in those cases. This is what is laid down in the Finance Act of 1894, Section 5, Sub-section (1):—

    (a) A further Estate Duty (called Settlement Estate Duty) on the principal value of the settled property shall be levied at the rate hereinafter specified, except where the only life interest in the property after the death of the deceased is that of a wife or husband of the deceased."

    There never has been Estate Duty paid in those cases at all.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Let me restate my case. I was assuming £20,000. There would be 6 per cent. Death Duties. There will be in addition 1 per cent. Legacy Duty, so that the total will be 7 per cent. Upon the death of the wife there would be another 6 per cent. duty assuming that the property had been given for life, and then it would pass to the children without further duty. I understand that is the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    805
    That is a case which seems to me to be one of extreme hardship, because it amounts altogether to 13 per cent. upon an estate, because the man has to provide by an insurance in his lifetime on the capital value of the estate which will pass on to the children. That is 13 per cent. on a very small estate. Personally, I prefer to look at it in the light of Income Tax. Take the average man who cannot expect to gain any large fortune, and he can only expect by real saving to accumulate a small capital, which he desires to pass on at his death to his family intact. He calculates what duty will be payable upon his death, and now in the majority of cases, wherever he can he insures his life for such a sum as will pay the Death Duty and will pass on that small estate to his family. If that 13 per cent. is to stand it means that in order to retain that estate intact to-day that man has got to pay the equivalent of 3s. 3d. in the £ in Income Tax. I have taken this on the assumption that the man was forty-two years of age, and that he could get an exact 3 per cent. premium. The combined effect of the insurance premium and the tax which he has to pay amounts to an Income Tax of 3s. 3d. in the £.
    I have gone a little further. If you take an estate of £150,000, you will find that the combined insurance of a man at the age of forty-two and the Income Tax amounts to very nearly 5s. in the £. This depends on the rate of interest you estimate. I have estimated it at 4 per cent., and an unearned income of £6,000 a year and the Income Tax on that will be about £400 a year. The insurance premium would be about £1,050, and that works out, reduced to terms of Income Tax, as an Income Tax upon the man's earnings of very nearly 4s. 1d. in the £. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "In those cases where the 2 per cent. Settlement Estate Duty has been paid, I still intend to vary the arrangement and to charge the full duty, notwithstanding that the 2 per cent. has been paid." He would not admit that there was any contract. He quoted what seemed to me to be quite a separate case, the case of a manufacturer who has laid down plant for a change in an Import Duty, and he seemed to treat that as an analogous case. That is not so at all. The manufacturer has had no direct relation with the Government. The Government has never consulted the manufacturer about what Tariff Duty is to be imposed, but in the case of these Settlement Duties
    806
    the Government is in direct contractual relationship, in that it has taken 2 per cent. from the individual in order to relieve that property from the tax. Now the Government are going back on the contract under which they have received cash in a direct relationship. It is a totally different thing from the Government altering a Tariff Duty. There it does not enter into a contract with the manufacturer or take money from the individual manufacturer. It has treated him as all other citizens, and it is entitled to alter the law. Here the Government have actually taken 2 per cent. in order—these were the Chancellor's own words—"to frank the estate." What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean by franking the estate if it is not accepting the 2 per cent. as a consideration for freeing the estate from the very duty which he now proposes to put upon it?
    It seems to me that this is a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government with people from whom the Government have taken money. I feel this so strongly that I am going to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer another way of getting the money rather than that he should commit this gross breach of faith. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Yes, but see how inconvenient it is. If I only bring this duty into operation in the future, it will mean that I and succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer for a generation will receive no income from the tax." Of course it is inconvenient, because he and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer has received the cash in advance; they have received 2 per cent. for franking the very estates which he is now trying to mulct over again. If he wants to alter this, and thinks that all estates ought to be put on the same basis, then he ought to increase the franking fee. He can easily make it 3 or 4 per cent., or some average amount which will cither not make it worth people franking their estate, or else make it worth their franking their estates, and so enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get immediate duty. If he fixes it cunningly about midway between, something which makes it just worth the taxpayer taking, some will do so and he will continue his present revenue, and some will not do so, and he will get a future revenue. Anyway, let him be reasonably honest in his dealings with those from whom he has taken money. His present proposal, to my mind, is absolutely dishonest. It is a pro-

    807
    posal which can conclusively be proved to be dishonest.
    All through the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, "Well, what is it that you object to? What item of expenditure do you object to?" It is not for us to say what item of expenditure we object to. When there is a Chancellor of the Exchequer about who is ready with his moneybags holding them out for everybody to to get a bit, naturally, every single section of the House joins in the scramble. That is not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to hold out golden sovereigns for everybody to rush after. His duty is to fix his expenditure according to the best interests of the nation, and then to divide that expenditure upon those subjects which most require to be dealt with. The large range of expenditure now prevailing has had this effect: that undoubtedly the cost of living has gone up. I am not going to argue how much taxation filters down, but I believe everybody, except the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), does admit that taxation does filter down to the poorer classes, and what is happening, undoubtedly, is that lots of people of the poorer classes are saving out of their earnings and so providing for themselves and rendering it less necessary for the State to provide for them. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) made a most interesting speech the other day, one of those typical speeches of his which showed that he has not the slightest idea of the power of saving. He made an interesting little observation to the effect that if Adam had lived and had been a thrifty man ever since he was in the Garden of Eden, and had saved all he could, he would never have had an income of a millionaire. That is really typical of his point of view. He never has considered what the power of saving really is. I would like just to check his theory of what would have happened. Of course, I do not know exactly how Adam could have been employed, but supposing he had been employed, let us say, in digging weeds, and he had saved £1 in the process. Suppose, having saved £1, he had looked about for means of employing it. I do not quite know what the £1 would have been represented by in those days, but, supposing he had found he could lend it, he probably would have lent it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Who to? Eve?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The only person he could have lent it to would have been Eve.
    Mr. W. THORNE: How would Eve have used it?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: To buy dresses. Supposing that had taken place, and that £1 had continued to be invested in that form, do you know that Adam would have been a millionaire in about 283 years, and that at the present moment, far from being merely a person who did not pay Super-tax, he would have owned the world; he would have owned more than all the wealth in the world. If hon. Members would like to check the calculation, I will tell them the exact sum which at this moment. Assuming that the Garden of Eden existed 6,000 years ago, the figure would be £13,671, followed by 123 noughts, a sort of sum to gladden the heart of the greediest Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. HEWINS: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his recent readings of Mr. Disraeli's speeches. He asked me in the course of his observations why we did not talk of Tariff Reform. I am going to meet his challenge. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only go on reading Mr. Disraeli's speeches, he will probably live to introduce a Tariff Reform Budget himself. Mr. Disraeli became the greatest exponent of the Tory tradition on Social Reform. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that he has discovered social reform. Let me tell him that it has been the Tory tradition ever since there has been a Tory party, and Mr. Disraeli was expressing that tradition in the speech which he made. The difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Disraeli is this: If Mr. Disraeli had been returned to power in 1880, he would have done precisely what we Tariff Reformers intend to do when we are returned to power.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He said it was dead and damned.
    Mr. HEWINS: I said that if he had been returned to power in 1880. There is another little point which I want to bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He speaks about the financial and commercial conditions of London in regard to other countries as though things remained unaltered, and as though his finance had done nothing to alter those

    809
    conditions. I believe, if he consults the economic authorities of the world at the present time, he will find that there is not one solitary economic authority anywhere who will not say that not only during the last generation, but for some years past, there has been a perfectly steady movement gradually altering the conditions of the financial world. The relative position of London and this country to other cities and other countries, is not what it was ten or fifteen or twenty years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) pointed out, in one of his most luminous speeches some time ago, that you cannot adopt the differential methods of taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted without altering the conditions which prevail here as compared with those in foreign countries at a time just when those foreign countries are getting into a position of predominance, or at any rate of equality with ourselves.
    There was one point in the poetic peroration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I particularly admired. He said that whoever became Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future would find himself up against new conditions, because conditions had fundamentally changed. I absolutely agree, and where I quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his extremely limited view of the manner and the area within which those conditions have changed. Take our expenditure and take our taxation since those palmy days of Mr. Gladstone. I may say at once that I am not an admirer of Mr. Gladstone or his finance. I dislike the economic Liberalism of Mr. Gladstone as much as I do of anybody else, and, in looking back to those days, do not, for heaven's sake, suppose that I want to return to the traditions of Mr. Gladstone! I certainly do not. I think the economic Liberalism of the Victorian era did much more harm to the social conditions of England than any other class of men who ever lived in this country. I have got a great mass of figures here, and I should be glad to give them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have worked them all out in the greatest detail, but I do not want to trouble the Committee with them. If you compare the figures of our expenditure and of our taxation—in the gross, in detail, or however you like—since 1880, you will find that in every direction there has been a perfectly steady movement of increase except under one particular head,
    810
    and that is in the gross of the burden of indirect taxation. From 1880–1 to last year the burden of direct taxation increased something like 161 per cent., and the burden of indirect taxation not above 10 or 15 per cent. That is an enormous discrepancy. I am speaking entirely from memory, but if you take, as you must take, as the real measure of direct taxation the sum of the burden of the rates,—that is, the money raised by rates, and the money raised by taxation—you will find at the present time, if you make a calculation of the burden upon the adult population above twenty-five years of age, that it amounts to £15 per head. This is an enormous figure.
    But you have to add to it other payments—not taxes and not rates, but payments which are absolutely compulsory and unavoidable in the different classes of society. Take the burden of the Insurance Act. I am not complaining of it, but it is in the nature of a tax. Take, too, the burdens placed on the employers of labour in their factories and workshops. They are compulsory, and can be reduced to a financial basis. There is no avoiding them. If you look at things in that way you will find there has been an absolutely fundamental and permanent alteration in the social structure and in the character of the demands made upon us. What has struck me in this Debate is the evidence afforded from the benches opposite of the absolute break with all economic tradition. There is none of it left. Take the system of local taxation Grants, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now reorganising. I suppose he has changed his mind about the way in which relief of the rates operates. I thought, according to him, it always went into the pockets of the landlord. I see there is a special provision in this case that it shall not, under the head of Improvements. But, really, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only read up the economic authorities, he will find that the word "improvements" is open to very many interpretations in the domain of economic speculation, and I would suggest to him, therefore, that he should beware of it. I think he will find, contrasting his speeches now with the speeches he made when he was opposing my right hon. Friend, that he has altogether modified his views on the question of the incidence of these rates. We have to add to that the yield of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Land Taxes, which have smashed up another part of the economic Liberal

    811
    creed. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really aware of the damage he has been doing the Free Trade system of economics. I have always had the feeling that he is really not at home amongst site values, and the decimal points of graduated scales. I attribute them to his advisers. He exploits those ideas, and tries to win votes by them, but I do not think he cares about the abstraction which forms the basis of the proposals. If you take these two things together, I think you will find that a very large slice has gone out of the whole of the old economic theory.
    Then we have the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) who calls himself a Socialist. But I have noticed very often in the speeches of representatives of that particular school of thought, a great deal of Socialistic sentiment, while their logic, argument, and assumptions so work out that their economic proposition becomes utterly ridiculous. In fact, they are simply the Manchester school in a state of repentance, and nothing else—the Manchester school tinged with emotion. Their ideas, doctrines, and economic theories have all come from the economists whom the Member for East Northants (Mr. Chiozza Money) denounces. The whole method and manner in which the hon. Member for Blackburn contrasts income and the estimated revenue from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taxes simply proved that he does come even within the remotest distance of a social conception in its application to national finance. He is all sentiment. The economics of these Gentlemen are the orthodox Cobdenist theories of by gone days. If you want the genuine article, you must go to pure Tory traditions, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, and in time you will get it. Of course, our increased expenditure is due to two great causes, social reforms and defence. I am not going to say anything about social reform, but I am going to talk about defence, because I believe naval expenditure is good for the country. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that we should not have the most rigid economy in regard to all expenditure, but I lay it down as a business proposition that a strong and supreme Navy is a perfectly sound investment. What are we to-day? The whole of our maritime and commercial supremacy has grown up around our naval policy.
    812
    Look at it at the present time—what, is it? It is practically a great bounty for the shipping interest. Look at shipbuilding. I say your naval policy is the greatest system of Protection the world has ever seen to that great industry, and it is so regarded by foreign countries. Foreign experts say, "You may abandon Protection in this or that direction, but in regard to the Navy you have kept it as much in force as in the days of the Navigation Laws." We give a bounty every year in the money we distribute to shipowners. We have a system of Admiralty contracts which acts as a system of Protection, and these advantages are shared by all the great shipbuilding firms. It does not matter how you give the advantage if it is given through the Navy. The battleship industry is one of our great industries, and it benefits the whole shipbuilding industry in the way it is spread out. Therefore it is a gigantic system of Protection. Personally, I am very much in favour if it, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes here and suggests he is going to cut down the Navy Estimates next year. How he is going to do it I do not know. I do not know whether he has examined the statistics of last year. I do not want to score a point against the Liberal Government, but I do not think they have behaved lightly as far as the Navy is concerned. I want to know on what he is going in anticipating a fall in naval expenditure?
    I look at the position all round. I see the industrial and economic situation has absolutely changed. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits it. A few years ago, let us say twenty-five years, this country was in a position of absolute supremacy. We were one supreme country among other smaller countries. Now, this country is simply one of a group of great Powers, equally powerful in industry, equally well equipped, and whose figures of trade are equal to our own, and their expansion of naval powder is very largely a mere reflex of the expansion of their industrial and economic power. I remember just about the time of the General Election of 1900 talking to one of the greatest of the German naval experts. He is dead now. We were talking about the plans for the future of Germany, and he fell back, not upon our policy here in a Free Trade area, but on the great national policy which formed the real basis of our greatness in times gone by. He said Germany would do exactly as we had done, and he sketched out the

    813
    way in which the German Navy would expand as her industries expanded. The two things hung together, and he declared that, in course of time, they would get what has actually happened in the case of Germany. That state of things is not going to change.
    Your expenditure upon social reform has gone up and is certain to increase. You may make all kinds of economies. I trust we shall. I think we could manage many things better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We may make many economies, but the expenditure itself will rise, and so will the expenditure upon defence, and so also will there be an automatic growth in the expenditure of various public Departments. The hon. Member for Blackburn talked of a Budget of £250,000,000 in, I forget, how many years. But I look round at the pledges given by both sides, and I reduce them to money terms. I can assure the Committee that if the pledges—and it is not the case of one party only—if the pledges which have been given are fulfilled, it is not a Budget of £250,000,000 that we shall have to face, but a Budget of £300,000,000, and that within a measurable distance of time. Take the various pledges the different parties are apparently agreed upon. Will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the expenditure of the, country is certain to go on increasing? Where is the money coining from? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Take it out of the rich." I do not know if we have millionaires enough quite to go round—I do not think we have. At any rate, it is a very difficult thing to catch them, and while the Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt tries to catch them, the people he really catches are just the ones we want to preserve in the country. We want to preserve the great middle class who live in the country on their estates. But the right hon. Gentleman is initiating a system of taxation which is certain to exterminate that class.
    8.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman has asked me about Tariff Reform. I suggest that of all the people who during the last thirty or forty years have worked to advance Tariff Reform, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done more than anybody else in that direction, because he has had the courage to break away from Liberal traditions. From one point of view he disapproves of Mr. Gladstone'e finance quite as much as I do from a different point of view. He has no sympathy whatever with the economic traditions of the
    814
    Liberal party. He has smashed them once and for all. He expects to be in office next year, and I ask him what is he going to do? The Liberal party will, unhappily—and I use the word "unhappily" because people like to have the credit for the things they propound—and we shall not be the people consequently to institute Tariff Reform, because this Government has already done it. Why has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken off the Sugar Duty? It has caused immense discontent on his side, and some people have been on the point of saying that they will vote against him. I do not think they will, but still they are very sore about the Sugar Duty, and the reason is a simple one. The Foreign Secretary committed a very high crime and mis-demeanour on the 24th May—Empire Day—in writing a dispatch to the Sugar Convention, in which he definitely refused to put on an excise corresponding to the duty, and he refused to do that on Protectionist grounds. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at that dispatch it will open his eyes. The "Westminster Gazette," a faithful follower of the Liberal party, condemned the Liberal party for giving up the principle which they had been fighting for all these years. Sugar is a food, sugar is a raw material, sugar is far more complicated than corn so far as tariffs are concerned, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Government have actually made that new departure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to know what we should do. The Government really know very much more about it, in a sense, than we do. We had the greatest difficulty at one time in working out a scheme of tariffs, but the Government have done it. They have got the Pert of London tariff, which would be a most admirable basis in many ways for the country as a whole, except that it puts duties on raw materials and on food. I might run through a great many experiments this Government have begun; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks me what we should do about Tariff Reform I ask them what they are going to do and how much farther they are going to carry it before we come in? When we come in we shall certainly carry it further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer docs not expect me to say that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West; Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). That I certainly do not. I believe that the

    815
    whole country will come to his policy. What I want to know is how much farther the Government are going in breaking up the present fiscal system by their system of indirect and direct taxation. They are retaining at the moment the preposterous duties on food of which the Labour party complain. There is no justification for those duties, except that they bring in a lot of money. You could not get so much money out of the working classes by any other means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that no working man would go deliberately day after day or week after week and pay 3½d. into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pocket in regard to his tobacco. No housewife would deliberately pay over directly the money she now pays for tea, and so on all through. The duties are preposterous; they are higher than in any other country, and it is certain that they will have to be modified.
    Then you have the new element introduced into the fiscal system by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is absolutely certain that if we do not come in and do it, hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially when they have studied and copied such excellent examples as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been looking at, but not copying so far, they themselves will find that the pressure of economic forces will bring them to a complete and well-thought-out scheme of Tariff Reform. There is absolutely no other way. The principle of that is exactly what is absent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's present scheme. Look at his Budget! What does it do for Ireland? It imposes upon Ireland a system still more unsuitable than the present one. What does it do for the Empire? Nothing. What does it do to bind classes together? Nothing. On the contrary, you will have to go around and say that your duty is to get money out of the rich. That is the new gospel the right hon. Gentleman has to preach; whereas the very beginning and basis of the policy for which we stand, and which we shall certainly carry out the moment we have the chance to do it, is a policy which begins with organising the economic forces we have in this country and in the Empire with a view to increasing production and increasing the fund out of which taxes come; therefore, it is not merely a question of the yield of particular duties that we may put on, but it is also a question of the increasing productivity of the country
    816
    and of the race. If it were in order and I had the time, nothing would please me more than to set forth at length the details of the proposals which we hope to see carried out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to know what they are, and is very anxious to know what our first Budget will be. He can easily find out. If the right hon. Gentleman arranges to have his party handsomely beaten in the Lobby—that is very easy to arrange in the present state of discontent in the party opposite—I can promise him that in a short space of time he shall know the fullness of the Tariff Reform policy, which we are perfectly certain is going to be adopted.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: What the Prime Minister stated some little time ago about grading the Income Tax led us to hope that he would remove some of the very striking anomalies that exist in the administration of that tax. Unfortunately, although some grading has been done, there are still many anomalies remaining which many of us are anxious to see removed. Any criticisms which I offer on the Budget will be in the direction of appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remedy and remove those anomalies, because they create a feeling of injustice among the taxpayers. The first to which I will refer is the married women's tax. It is a very hard thing indeed that a woman should be treated under the Married Women's Property Act as an independent unit, but the moment she is married we get back to the old position of 1842 and the Income Tax Act—of her property belonging to her husband and of their both being one. The moment that either of them dies they become two again, and their estates are two for the purposes of taxation. That cannot be justified. Some time ago, when the married women went as a deputation to the-Chancellor of the Exchequer, they seemed to a large extent to prevail upon him, their case being absolutely unanswerable. I cannot see why the Treasury should insist and persist in treating the joint incomes of two married people as one. Take the simple instance of a girl who has a private income £150 a year. Being entitled to a rebate she pays nothing on it. She marries a man who has £700 a year, so that the joint income is £850, but she gets no abatement. We had the very troublesome case of the lady Dr. Wilks, whose husband was put in prison for not paying. The only answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    817
    gave them was that if he adopted the policy of treating a married woman's income as a separate entity from that of her husband it would cost £1,500,000. That is no justification.
    Then there is the case of wasting securities, which is a case of the grossest injustice. The principle is that only income is taxable under the Income Tax, yet you get capital as well constantly taxed, both in respect of leaseholds and mining properties. The life of a mine is a very limited one, twenty or twenty-five years being the duration of life on the very best mines. When a dividend of 10 or 12 per cent. is received, every wise man treats 5 per cent. as income and the balance as capital, but he is charged Income Tax on the full amount, which is taxing his capital as well as his income. In the case of leaseholds I can give the Committee a very striking case which came under my notice a little time ago. A man bought for £8,000 a leasehold twenty-one years to run, which yields him a profit rental of £600 a year. He bought it for a 5 per cent. investment. That was £400 a year for income, and £200 a year goes to capital. He used that in buying a policy which expires at the end of the term of twenty-one years. The Income Tax authorities deduct Income Tax from the whole £600. That is not fair. The ordinary man in the street would call that cheating, and the mischief of it is that when a Government Department begins cheating people are thrown back upon the primeval method of beginning to cheat them. The consequence is that these big injustices—there are a great many of them—spread through the community and seem to justify people in doing all they can to defeat the Income Tax Commissioners at every place and opportunity and think nothing of it. It is a great misfortune and a, great pity. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should take a lesson in this matter from New Zealand, which has seen the injustice of it. I would refer him to the New Zealand Official Year Book, where he will find that mining companies are assessed on one-half the dividends paid annually to the shareholders, and the other half is exempted as being considered a return of the shareholder's capital. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt that principle.
    There is also the case of machinery. Tradespeople and manufacturers nowadays have to keep their machinery up to standard. It very often happens that a
    818
    manufacturer, if he wants to keep alongside his competitor, must scrap certain machinery and put in new machinery. The Income Tax Commissioners allow nothing for the loss of the scrapped machinery. Here, again, the younger community sets us an example, for obsolete machinery is also allowed for when the machinery has been absolutely discarded and the loss definitely ascertained, the amount allowed being the loss less depreciation previously allowed. I would commend this to the attention of my right hon. Friend. As to the grading of the Estate Duties, I wish to refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech for the purpose of asking whether the grading represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that speech is what he meant or not. He said:—
    "You charge 7d. on the next £1,000, 9d. on the next £1,000. 11d on the next £1,000, and 1s. 1d. on the next £1,000."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1914, col. 88.]
    That is how I should like to see all the taxes graded, but I am afraid that is not what the Chancellor meant. I expect what he meant was really with the first £1,000, sevenpence, the next £1,000 plus the first £1,000, ninepence. I should like him to explain what he really means, and whether the grading only goes on by steps in that way, or whether the succeeding sum carries the first and all other sums with it still.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): If my hon. Friend will look at the Order Paper to-day he will see the Super-tax Resolution set out in full, which I think clears up the point.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: That docs not deal with the question I had in view. What I complain of about the Estate Duties is the large jumps. If my hon. Friend works it out, he will find that where a man dies, leaving an estate of £19,900 and another man dies leaving an estate of £20,010, this absurd thing happens—the executors of the man who left the lesser sum have actually to deal with £100 more than the executors of the man who left the larger sum. When you get to £39,900 as against £40,010 the executors of the man who left the smaller sum have £300 more as a balance than the executors of the man who left the larger sum. When you come to £59,900 as against £60,010 the executors of the man who left the smaller sum get £599 more than the executors of the man who left the larger sum. When it comes to £99,900 as against £100,100 the executors get £810 more than for the

    819
    larger estate. That seems to me perfectly ridiculous. It is absurd that in these close sums the executors of a man who leaves the larger sum should get a smaller sum to deal with. In New Zealand, if the value of the succession to the wife or children does not exceed £20,000 no duty is payable, but if the value is in excess of that amount, a tax of 2 per cent. is levied on the total value. But the duty payable "shall not be greater than the amount by which the succession exceeds £20,000." The meaning of that is that under no circumstances shall the wife or children get less than the £20,000, and so on with regard to the succession itself. In regard to husbands and relatives, no duties shall be paid in respect of any succession the value of which does not exceed £200, and the duty payable on any succession in excess of that sum shall not be greater than the amount by which the succession exceeds £200. If you were to apply that to this case, it would mean that the excess duty caused by the rise to a larger sum shall not exceed that extra money, so that the man's estate will not be penalised by leaving a larger sum. If these words were introduced it would give a great deal of satisfaction. With regard to the duties themselves, I think they are far too high, and they will defeat their own object. They will be a good thing for the country at large, because they will make men distribute their fortunes during their lifetime. There is a point at which taxation begins to defeat itself, and I am quite sure that that point is very nearly, if not quite, reached in these Death Duties. I have heard of two cases in which large estates belonging to Noble Lords were divided up last summer, and I have known several cases where people have distributed their fortunes during their lifetime, who, but for the large duties in the 1910 Budget, would never have thought of doing it.
    With regard to the relief which is proposed to the rates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) after all, and what he wanted to know, and what most of us want to know is what is going to be done this year. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce certain conditions. I am afraid on this side there is a morbid fear least any relief of the kind should be given to the landlord. That is a feeling which will perhaps die out. After all, the landlords provide houses for 80 per cent. of the people, who will not build them-
    820
    selves, and I do not think you can devise any form of relief which will not involve a relief to the rates on these houses, but if you are going to throw upon the Local Government Board, or any other Board you like to create, the invidious duty of discriminating between this local authority and the next local authority as to how you are going to give that relief, you are laying up trouble for yourselves in the future. Of the Budget generally, I am sorry to say I do not think these enormous Budgets are going to do any good to the Liberal party. The charge which is laid against us by our opponents is that we have forgotten altogether the promises that we made for retrenchment. The answer we can make to a great extent is true. A great deal of the money that has been spent is being spent on social amelioration, but there are other items in armaments and in general expenditure. Some general expenditure, I am sorry to say, I consider to be very extravagant. During the first year after the 1906 election we saved money. We knocked something off the Tea Duty and we knocked something off the Sugar Duty, but since then there is no hope of anything of the kind, and any relief of taxation seems to me to be relegated to the very far distant future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims, properly, that the Government have redeemed £100,000,000 of the National Debt. Do not let them forget that they did that out of taxation to a large extent, and, further than that, they had the facility of redeeming debt at something like 20 per cent. to 28 per cent. discount, so that there is nothing very great to take credit for in that. But since 1908 there has been no systematic, definite, or continued effort at retrenchment in any of the public services, and, so far as Liberals are concerned, we are still for peace and we are still for reform. But I think we shall have to strike retrenchment off our standard altogether.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) that the Liberal party had better strike "retrenchment" off their standard altogether. I well remember the promises which were made of retrenchment at the election of 1906, and I think nothing contributed more to the loss of the seat I then held than the statement that the party to which I belong had been very extravagant. We were promised retrenchment, but we certainly have not got it. The hon. Member said we must re-

    821
    member that the money raised has been largely spent in social ameliorations, but I would point out that only a small portion comparatively has been spent in social amelioration. How much has the impost been increased while the present Government has been in office? Roughly speaking, including insurance taxes, about £60,000,000 a year. I think the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government put it at £40,000,000, but it should be remembered that if you include the contributions by employers and employed, it is about £60,000,000. What have we got for that sum? On old age pensions we spend about £12,000,000 a year, and we are spending an undefined sum for the purposes of the Insurance Act. We spend £16,000,000 a year extra for the Navy. But there is a large sum beyond that to be accounted for. There is a very general impression in the country, which I think is based on a right foundation, that a great deal of the money is muddled away on Government officials, and in various ways for which the country gets no benefit at all. That is the question which the Liberal party will have to answer at the next election, and although I am not concerned in the Liberal party, I think from a national point of view it is a very serious matter.
    The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day was one of the most extraordinary I have ever heard in this House. The right hon. Gentleman is raising a very large additional revenue, amounting to at least £10,000,000 a year, but he utterly refuses to state how it is going to be spent this year. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has confirmed that. [An HON. MEMBER: "How is the money being frittered away?"] I can give the hon. Member two items. The Valuation Department consists of 4,641 people, and their salaries cost £750,000 a year. I regard that as frittered away. The other way is by payment of Members which was brought about without any legislative sanction whatever. I was dealing with the point which was made by the hon. Member opposite as to the extraordinary position we are in to-day. An extra £10,000,000 is being raised this year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not tell us how he is going to spend it this year. He told us what will happen next year. He said that a Valuation Bill will have passed, that a new valuation will be made for rating purposes in the second half of next year, and that then the Grants will be made to the local authorities in accord-
    822
    ance with the terms of that valuation. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman and he said he would answer it, but he did not. I asked how is the money going to be spent this year? He admits that the new valuation will be ready this year. I imagine that somebody is going to speak later on for the Government, and we demand an answer to the question: How is the money going to be spent this year? That is a question we have a right to have answered, for the distribution will depend upon the Finance Bill founded upon the Resolutions we are taking this evening.
    We have a right to know whether the amount to be given to the local authorities will be distributed subject to new conditions, or whether it is to be given in the form of more doles. We wish to know also whether it is to be given in return for additional money raised locally, or in return for some new system of rating which has not yet been devised. I think the Committee has art absolute right, before voting this very large sum, to know the manner in which it is going to be distributed to the local authorities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a very characteristic speech—and I am bound to say I think a most unfair speech—attacked us all along the line on the ground, or, rather, the suggestion, for it was only a suggestion, that we were making objections to the raising of money which was to go for purposes of social reform, and especially purposes of public health. I say that is a most unjust accusation. Not a single Member on this side, and so far as I know not a single Member on the other side, has suggested anything of the kind. All we ask is how the money is to be distributed, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about clearing out slums, building houses, and the necessity of giving more money for these purposes, does he forget the fact that Members on this side of the House have proposed that very thing for the last three years, and that we have had nothing but obstruction and opposition from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members on his own side. The hon. Member who now represents the Government on the Front Bench (Mr. Montagu) knows that perfectly well. He knows that I, myself, and others, have proposed, year after year, a Treasury Grant of £1,000,000 for the purpose of dealing with housing conditions both in town and country. What were we told? We were told by the late President of the Local

    823
    Government Board, who is now President of the Board of Trade, that such a Grant would be vicious in principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes a Grant of £4,000,000 for purposes of public health. Everybody knows that the question of housing is one of the most important, and at the present moment one of the most expensive items in public health charges. A Grant of £4,000,000, as compared with the modest £1,000,000 we asked for! It is to be withheld in the case of local authorities who do not properly carry out their duties. That is exactly what we asked for, and it was called vicious in principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to the House and practically steals the whole of our policy. We do not complain of that so long as he carries it out, but it is not fair to accuse us of having made a proposal which is vicious in principle. A more unjust position was never taken up in this House.
    It was rather interesting to notice the example which the Chancellor of the Exchequer cited of the necessity for what you you may call a policy towards assisting the better health of the people. He quoted a speech which Mr. Disraeli made, I think, in Edinburgh, in 1872. In order to get a constructive policy he had to go to a Tory leader, but he did not quote the criticisms of that speech which were made by the Radicals of the day. That speech, which urged greater measures with respect to public health and housing, was jeered at and laughed at as a policy of sewage. After all, a policy of sewage has come to be recognised as a policy absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the people, and just as Mr. Disraeli was the originator of that policy so we can claim that we have tried to carry it out ever since, in spite of the obstruction of the Radical party. I entirely approve of a policy of assisting local authorities. My position in the matter is perfectly clear. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham moved a Resolution in this House three and a half years ago in favour of more State aid for the local ratepayers I had the honour of seconding that Resolution. That Resolution had the effect of causing the appointment of the Kemp Committee. I understand that the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are based mainly upon the suggestions of the Kemp Committee. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government are largely misleading the public.
    824
    They are certainly misleading the local authorities and the ratepayers by talking about so much in the pound relief. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about an average of 9d. in the £ relief. He told us this afternoon of certain counties who get 4d. in the £ relief, while other counties might get 6d. and others 11d., and so on. The inevitable result of talk of this sort is that local authorities and ratepayers think that they are going to have their rates reduced by that amount. Nothing of the kind will happen. It is only right that a warning should be issued at once.
    What will happen will be this. The relief will be granted in respect of additional work that will have to be carried out. The new Grants-in-Aid will cause the raising of additional sums by the ratepayers. It is quite true that we shall get more work done, and I shall not complain of that. But let not anybody suppose that the ratepayer is going to be saved anything like 9d. in the £. Nothing of the kind will occur. In fact, I should not be surprised if a few years hence, as a net result of this Grant-in-Aid, the rates will be very much higher than they are now. Let us make the matter perfectly clear. Let the Government when they talk about their policy in the country state what is strictly true. They are by this expenditure enabling local authorities to do more. But let them not suggest that they are going to save the ratepayer 9d. in the £, or any other figure. While I entirely approve of the general principle of aiding the local authorities, we want to know how the money is going to be spent, and to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not raising more money than is necessary for his immediate purposes. We object very strongly, and local authorities object, to this proposal for taking the valuation for rating purposes entirely out of their hands and placing it in the hands of a central authority. That is a most outrageous and pernicious proposal. I have not the slightest notion why it is done, unless it be to keep in office and in salaries that expensive Valuation Department to which I have already alluded, and which to my mind would be the very worst body possible to which the valuation for local rates could be entrusted. What do they know about if? What local knowledge have they got? Yet, according to the Kempe Committee, whose view the-Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently adopts, they are to be the authority to fix the rating assessment all over the

    825
    country, subject only to an appeal to some new assessment authority. The assessment authority are not to be a final court of appeal, but there is to be a further appeal to a final tribunal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer practically told the Kemp Committee to make this proposal. On the 13th November, 1912, he wrote them a letter, which is printed in the Report, indicating that this proposal would be made that they should make use of the central Valuation Department for the purposes of local rating. I think that the central Valuation Department is the most expensive luxury of the present day.
    For the purposes for which it was started it has proved to be thoroughly inefficient. I can give an example. I was engaged some little while ago in connection with the London County Council in buying up slum property for a clearance scheme in South London. It was a question of what compensation we should pay the owner, I suggested to the London County Council officials that they should take the Government valuation as a guide of what we ought to pay. They said that it would be no good doing that, as if we took that valuation we should probably pay a great deal more than we should by private treaty. It so turned out. On every single occasion we were able to get slum property at a considerably lower figure than the Government valuation. What on earth is the good of a valuation like that? It is absolutely useless. Now you are going to use it for the purpose of local rating, which involves very difficult questions as to which these people have had no experience and no local knowledge. And we are at enormous expense to entrust to them this very difficult job, which would be infinitely better and more cheaply done by the local authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried this afternoon to make out that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand had introduced a Valuation Bill on the same date. I remember that Bill perfectly well. It was nothing of the sort. There was no question of central valuation. It simply was that there were to be new local valuation authorities with the representative of the central authority put upon them. But the decision of this difficult question was left to local authorities with local knowledge. I am very much afraid that all the Chancellor of the Exchequer is content to do is to keep alive this Department, and to impose upon it work for which it is thoroughly incompetent—how incompetent
    826
    can be shown by the interesting question which was put by one member of the Kempe Committee on this very point. A witness had said that the central authority would not be a fit body for the local valuation, whereupon the Members of the Committee said:—
    "But surely these young men"—
    I believe that most of the members of this Valuation Department are young men—
    "if employed to make valuations for rating would soon begin to acquire the necessary knowledge"
    In other words, at the expense of the nation this central body is to learn its job by making every sort of muddle from the point of view of local taxation. To recapitulate, we want and must have an answer to the question how the Grants are going to be distributed this year. That is an absolutely necessary preliminary to the money being voted. None of us are opposed to Grants-in-Aid of local authorities. It is an overdue reform which should have been carried long ago. Lastly, we say that we must have further explanations before we agree to the functions of the local assessment committees being taken away, and the work being undertaken by a central body. We want a great deal more information on all these points before we vote the money which is contemplated by the resolutions.
    Mr. MORRELL: No one can have listened to this Debate without feeling how far we have advanced since the great struggle which took place in 1909. Here we have a Budget which proposes to raise £10,000,000 this year, and about £15,000,000 in a full year, and to raise it almost entirely out of large estates either by Death Duties or by means of a Super-tax. We have had speeches of much interest about this Budget, which in its way, is quite as important as the Budget of 1909, so bitterly opposed by the party opposite. We have had speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite in which they have asked for further information, in which they remarked that we have forgotten out principles of retrenchment, but we have heard nothing whatever against the great principle of this new scheme, that is to say, the principle of calling upon persons of large incomes and upon great estates to contribute far more than they do at present to the expenditure of the country. For my part, I most sincerely join in the congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from all Liberals in the House, and all Liberals in the country. We think that this is a great

    827
    Budget. We think it is going to be a great principle of social reconstruction, and I am indeed delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has called upon persons who are well able to do so, to contribute much more than they do at present to the objects of housing, the public health and education, which are so badly in need of a larger expenditure than they at present get.
    But while saying all that, I am bound to express—and I admit that it is chiefly for this purpose I have risen—my disappointment, a disappointment that is shared by a good many people outside this House, that the Chancellor this year, while making this great new scheme, has not found it possible to do anything to deal with some of those taxes which fall principally upon the poor, and especially, of course, the Sugar Tax. I believe that tax stands altogether by itself. It is a tax for the repeal of which we can make a claim as we can with regard to no other tax. It is a tax, bad not only in degree, but it is bad in kind. Considering the whole history of this tax, considering the way in which it was denounced by the Liberal party when in Opposition and when it was imposed by the party opposite, and, considering the promises which we have had since from responsible Ministers, I think we are entitled to express our disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet seen his way to repeal it. In saying that, I want to state at once that in my opinion this is not a question of penalising one class in order to relieve another; we are too apt to regard legislation from that point of view. I agree with what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I agree with what Lord Esher has said in a letter to the "Times" to-day that all taxation does, no doubt, filter through the community to the poorer classes. Even the Super-tax will filter down to the working classes. I agree with that absolutely. I would suggest, however, that, in the first place, the question is whether the tax is a good or a bad one.
    Although I agree that taxation filters down through all classes of the community, yet I submit that a tax which, in the first place, like the Super-tax, falls upon luxuries, tends to reduce the expenditure on luxuries; on the other hand, a tax like the Sugar Tax, which falls, in the first place, either upon the very poor, or upon very large industries, upon the raw
    828
    material of those large industries, is in itself a vicious tax which, for that reason, we ought not to continue. That has already been admitted by a great many speakers, and I am sure it would be admitted by my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench (Mr. Montagu). It is a part of the principles of the Liberal party; but I must say, and I say it with regret, that when, year after year, we make this appeal, and it is disregarded, we begin to have doubts whether, after all, there is not some intention on the part of the Government to keep this tax as a part of the permanent system of taxation of the country. I regret very much that in the two speeches we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the very eloquent speech which he made on introducing the. Budget and the very forcible speech which we have had from him to-day, we did not have any word, as regards the Sugar Tax, to indicate that he stood by the old pledges, given over and over again, that at the first possible opportunity these Sugar Duties are to be repealed. I may recall what was said by the Prime Minister on the subject. The quotations have been made before, but some of them, I think, are worthy of repetition, for it is so important that we should, if possible, hear some pronouncement from the Government on the subject. The Prime Minister, in 1907, said:—
    "It is a bad tax, a tax which ought to be got rid of at the earliest possible moment. It is vicious in principle, is burdensome in its incidence, and unequal in operation between different classes of the community."
    Then he added:—
    "It is a tax which ought not to form part of the permanent fiscal machinery of the country."
    The Chancellor spoke at various times on this subject. When he was in Opposition, in 1904, he said that in his opinion these taxes, like the Sugar Tax and the Tea Tax, that involved the food of the people, should be treated as a special reserve. He added:—
    "I do not think the Government ought to continue a tax of that character"—
    that is to say, the Sugar Tax—
    "as a permanent burden upon the people of the country."
    Only two years ago he said in this House of Commons:—
    "Whenever there is a possibility of our dealing with this matter we consider ourselves pledged to deal with it. We do not consider our obligation is discharged by a reduction of £3,000,000 a year."
    9.0 P.M.
    These pledges are precise and very clear, and I hope—indeed, I have no doubt—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand by them. But I must say that it is astonishing to me—I do not want to speak in

    829
    any hostile spirit of the Government, because I admire the work the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been doing, and I thoroughly support the grand scheme of this Budget—that he should have thought it necessary to prefer so many of the objects which he has preferred to the repeal of this Sugar Tax. Let me take some of the objects to which the money is to be devoted. The relief of local authorities in respect of criminal prosecution—that, after all, is not a very important matter; the relief in respect of police; the relief in respect of the maintenance of main roads, which is a matter that might very well be met by some extra taxation on motors. Those are, no doubt, all excellent and worthy objects, but the pledges we have given in regard to them are as nothing compared to the pledges that we would oppose taxes on food and reduce them at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, I say, I regret that in a Budget which is raising so much extra money it was not found possible to provide the three and a quarter millions necessary, to get rid of what is admittedly the most objectionable of all existing taxes, and which is not only a tax on food, but on raw material. Two courses were open to the right hon. Gentleman. He might either have raised more money while he was about it, and three and a quarter millions would not have made much difference. I am perfectly certain there are many of the possessing classes who would be very glad to pay more money in taxation if they be sure that this tax on the very poorest of the poor would be got rid of. On the other hand—and this would, I think, have been the simpler plan—he might have divided the relief he was giving in this Budget between the rates or local taxation, and the repeal of the Sugar Tax. I understand that in a full year these new taxes are estimated to yield something like £15,000,000. Even if we assume that £5,000,000 is to come off for the Navy and £3,250,000 more for the repeal of the Sugar Tax there would still be some £9,000,000 left for the relief of the local authorities. I do hope before this Debate closes we may have some indication that the pledges which have been so repeatedly given on behalf of the Government still hold good, and that the produce from these taxes will be used in order to redeem the promise so often given, and which is, I believe, an obligation so binding upon the conscience of the party.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member (Mr. Morrell) at the opening of his speech congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the fact that the Budget had been greeted with almost universal praise, but even in doing so, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) and the hon. Member for West Ham, the hon. Member devoted very much more than half his speech to condemning very severely the lapses of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that very Budget. Not only had he to do so, but he himself struck at the very crucial point in which, in the opinion of many of us, this Budget fails, and that is that this over-taxation and this arbitrary taxation ultimately, as he agrees, filters down to the poorest class. That is what many of us feel. Curtailed in time, I shall only touch upon one-point and one single feature of the Budget, which, to my mind, is the central point, and that is that the basis of taxation, instead of being a scheme of taxation, is an instrument of arbitrary confiscation, and a lever for working a change in our social economy. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite are very often accustomed to accuse Members on this side of speaking in their selfish interests, and of taking no interest in the affairs of the poor, and of not being in sympathy with them. I wonder how true in their hearts they believe that statement to be? We have many rich men on both sides of the House, and it is to the honour of the House, and one of which we are proud, that we have not found on either side rich men rising here to defend their own interests and to refuse to take the burden which properly lies upon them. There is another aspect of the matter. I am speaking not for any Party but solely for myself and for my Constituency of 12,000 of the middle and professional classes. Are they speaking only in their own interests if they throw doubt upon your modern fiscal system? I take myself with all humility as a typical specimen. The Super-tax does not touch me; I never paid a penny for any Death Duties, and those who come after me will not find their withers wrung by any such taxation. The speech of the President of the Local Government Board has failed to rouse my ambition up to the point of paying Super-tax, and his benevolent intentions in that regard have fallen far short of their end.
    There is a large class who, looking not to their own interests, do think they see in these proposals a danger to the future of this country. It is the danger involved

    831
    to the country and to the poorer classes that arouses me; and do not let hon. Members below the Gangway opposite think that they have a monopoly of knowledge of the poorer classes. Some on this side have known what it is to be poor and live on the very scantiest means. But let me ask, are we measuring the advance that we are making towards that socialism which was put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) in a speech whose sincerity, whole-heartedness, clearness, and eloquence I for one admired? Is the House prepared for, and does it know how far, it has advanced in the direction of that socialism preached by the hon. Member for Blackburn? What did we read on Tuesday last in our most solid and most substantial and most moderate newspaper? I refer to the "Times," which approved of a differential taxation as a powerful instrument for redressing the inequality of wealth. Great inequalities of wealth I am at one with any Member of this House in deploring. If we can prevent it, let us do so by giving means to those of the poorer classes to improve their position. But when you say that you are to use taxes as a means of levelling all property and all fortune—and that is absolutely what is included in the plain sense of the words of the "Times"—how very narrow is the gulf which separates us from the socialism of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for East Northants (Mr. Chiozza Money), when he quoted these words of the "Times," hesitated whether he himself was prepared to subscribe to such a sweeping doctrine. I agree as to the scandalous evil of heaping up enormous wealth for purposes of luxury side by side with our slum dwellings, and the crushing poverty that exists; but if you attempt by artificial means and taxation to level these differences, I am not sure that you will not work a greater evil still. I had the good or bad fortune in 1909 to be almost alone in moving against the Super-tax, which was then a perfectly new element in our taxation, and one to which Mr. Gladstone never even remotely gave his consent.
    I remember at that time having a talk with the hon. Member for Blackburn, which I hope he will not mind my recalling. He said to me, "Of course I differ entirely from your view, but I agree
    832
    with you as to the Super-tax; that is to be our instrument in future." Is it certain that the hon. Member for Blackburn was not right in his prophecy? He indulged in prophecy the other day, when he told us that in ten years our national expenditure would have grown, I think he said, to £250,000,000. I thought he was very moderate. I expected him to put it much higher. I will indulge in prophecy on my own account. I said in 1909 that this would be a dangerous instrument, and one that would tell not only upon the rich, but also upon the poor. That instrument has increased in four years by 160 per cent.—not a bad advance in such a short time. The prophecy that I make is that if we advance on the same course of fiscal tendency which we are now pursuing, within 20 years it will be nearer 10s. than the sum at which it now stands. What does this involve? I think it involves the substitution for that sense of responsibility, that high sense of traditional duty, which has rested upon property, of a mere toll which, in the long run, will absolutely abolish all responsibility. This sense of responsibility, after all, has not been a bad thing. It is the people who have grown up to that tradition, who are bringing a kindly influence to boar upon those amongst whom they are placed, who have a high sense of duty—it is these who will be chiefly hit by the new taxes. It will not be the wealthy financiers.
    I have been struck, almost more than by any other in the Debate, by the speech from the hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who is well acquainted with the affairs of finance. He told us what is evidently true, that the Super-tax and heavy duties of that sort will not fall upon the financier. Finance is a very volatile ether; to change the metaphor, money finds its level like water. You have the value of money, and the interest you have to pay for the use of money is not determined by the rules, laws, or Statutes passed in any one kingdom. It is determined by what is going on all the world over. If you pass laws, or make some arbitrary regulation putting a burden on money in one country, the financier will have to recoup himself by asking there a higher price for the use of his capital. Trade will be crippled, wages will go down, food prices will rise. The financier is the last man who will suffer. The man who will suffer is the small landowner, who is striving to do his duty, and who is far from having a large margin for

    833
    luxuries. I am the last man in this House who would wish to be sparing in taxing the luxuries of the rich. I would put taxes, and very severe taxes, upon the rich in times of great emergency. There are times when the needs of the country may make it necessary to lay a hand upon the possessions of the wealthy and to say, "Before anything is spent, your country has need of a large proportion of your property." You may have to stop not only moderate luxuries, but even charities, in a great national need. But that must be only in great emergencies, and we must keep it for emergencies. There is another way that I would tax the rich, and that is on their luxuries. There are an immense number of people who have what are nominally fairly good incomes, or what appear to hon. Members to be good incomes. But I would ask the hon. Member for Blackburn if he really wants us to take his word seriously when he says that we might perfectly safely tax a man with £10,000 a year to the extent of half his income, and yet leave him in abundance? Is he not perfectly aware that many men with £5,000 a year have not more to spend on their own private affairs than he or I have? Does he, as a reasonable man, think it possible to judge of the abundance of a man's means, and his power of purchasing luxuries, merely by taking the amount of his income, without taking account of the obligations under which that man may be placed, of those dependent upon him, and of the calls of every sort upon the income? The hon. Member is far too just-minded not to know that the mere measure of the number of pounds is a very poor criterion of the financial power of a man.
    It is far better to lay your tax on what French financiers are accustomed to call the "signs of luxury." I am glad to see public luxuries, and do not grudge lavish expenditure on such things as our gardens at Kew and Hampton Court, which are enjoyed by everybody; but I hate the excesses of private luxury. Surely we have had many disgusting signs of that in some of the Transatlantic vulgarity which invades our shores. Upon these people lay your hands. They would be only the better pleased if they had to pay more. A great part of the charm of their luxuries to these over-bloated capitalists is the price they have to pay for them. I would have no mercy on such people. There are only two limits that I
    834
    would impose on the taxation of luxuries, and they are where the tax is so high that it ceases to be productive because people cease to use the luxury, or where it places an unjust embargo upon a legitimate home trade. Instead of this you will try to destroy the class against whom you have a grudge, and for which I have no right and no brief to speak but against which you have a grievance. I never owned an acre, and no one connected with me ever owned an acre of land. I have never belonged to that class, but I am glad to count many of ray best friends as belonging to it, and I know of their willingness to take their part in citizenship, and I know of their good work an England. But perhaps the onlooker sometimes sees most of the game, and I am going to ask the Committee to allow me to read the best translation I can give of a few words that I read in a Paris paper of last Friday. It is an article written on this present Budget, and the writer says:—
    "The salient fact, is the persistent attack of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the territorial class; that social class which has made England, which has given her her soldiers, her politicians, her local administrators, in one word, has made her social and political physiognomy."
    The French writer, at least, is not prejudiced. I think that will be allowed, and that hon. Members below the Gangway will admit that he has no party end to serve?
    "Anyone who has spent even a little time in the English country is bound to admire those little rural societies in which service is exchanged in a spirit of real goodwill and benevolence. In these landed classes a great fortune is the exception and a moderate fortune is the ordinary rule. These classes have more and more trouble with diminishing means in fulfilling the social and traditional duties which rest upon them. It is there that one meets the true England, the most profoundly civilised and the most sturdy part of her race."
    That is the class against which you are aiming. Yon are endeavouring to crush them out. Perhaps you will deprive England of a great feature; because it is these people that you can get into the clutches of the tax gatherer more than the wealthy, luxurious financier, who cares not for your taxes, and who will pay them as a toll and then will snap his fingers at all your traditions of duty and responsibility. You will crush down the classes of England to one level. Then there will be an equally fierce competition in thrift, saving, and in the gaining of money. During this time the sense of property will grow into the bone, and out of that level a few men will rise who will possess a little more property than the others, and who will defend it with fierce tenacity.

    835
    The cycle will come round again, and you will again have differences of rank, differences of wealth, differences of possession; but before you arrive at that time you will have passed through a long course of trouble, social and economic disaster, and illusion.
    Mr. BLACK: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that when the Budget of 1909 was introduced he was an opponent of the Super-tax. He seems now to have become converted to that excellent idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is willing, further, to add to the burdens that are placed upon the wealthy and well-to-do. It is very nice to find—and I agree with my hon. Friend—that in these Debates there have been no rich men on cither side who have made any protest against the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for placing the present heavy burdens of taxation upon the shoulders of those best able to bear them. That such is the case is a matter, I think, on which the House may congratulate itself. Though the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes no promises and gives no pledges as to any future action, yet I am sanguine enough to believe that the proposals now before the House, in future years—I hope even next year—will provide sufficient funds for freeing the breakfast table altogether from taxes, including the tax upon sugar which many of us had hoped to sec removed long before this. I commend to the most earnest consideration of the right hon. Gentleman that in any surplus that he may have for next year that one of the first things he will consider will be the relief of sugar, tea, and the other breakfast table taxes.
    In regard to the Grants that are to be given in relief of the rates, I welcome them very heartily. I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley that it is premature for local authorities and for the ratepayers in the localities to anticipate that they are going to get all the relief that these Grants will afford. I have had some experience of the working of local authorities, and I know perfectly well that the tendency on every hand is to spend more and more, so that while the relief will come to local authorities in the way of these increased Grants, yet the tendency, I believe, will be that the money will be gobbled up in increased services. Of course so long as the projects are good and wise, and the money is carefully expended by the
    836
    local authority, the local authority will derive benefit from the Grants. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, in his speech the other day deplored the fact that the present cast-iron system of pensions, insurance, and other social legislation destroyed the old spirit of friendliness, helpfulness, and charity of former days. I doubt myself if there is any less friendliness among the various classes of the community because of this social legislation. My experience leads me to think that nothing of the kind has happened. It is true that there is more independence. I know something from personal experience of the spirit of independence which has been given to old folk who are now enjoying these old age pensions. I had an opportunity a few days ago of talking to an old lady now in receipt of 5s. a week, who in her earlier married days had to keep house and bring up a family on 7s. or 8s. or 9s. a week, and she said, "I now get 5s. a week," and she added. "It is beautiful living now." These were her own words, and that is the spirit of independence which is given from every point of view. I welcome the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as outlined in his Budget. With regard to the Sinking Fund I have only this word to say: I should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the provision he is now making without touching the Sinking Fund in any way whatever, and I am sanguine enough to believe that the proposals he is now asking the House to approve will provide such funds as will make any raid upon the Sinking Fund' either this year or in the coming years altogether unnecessary.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: There is one matter upon which, at any rate, I can congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is that he has been able throughout the whole of his Budget speech to avoid mentioning a duke. It seems an advance that he was so induced to restrain his usual methods of exciting class hatred, which I think is the most deplorable aspect of his career. The Budget as a whole certainly does not carry out the watchwords of the Liberal party "Retrenchment and Reform." I hardly think speakers on the other side could venture to state that it does. I do not want to refer to the old sayings that fell from hon. Members opposite in various times before 1906, but I cannot but recall the Debate at which I was present in the

    837
    year 1905, when Mr. Buchanan, who afterwards became Under-Secretary for India, moved an Amendment to the Address to the effect—
    "That the increase in our national expenditure has been excessive, and has imposed heavy burdens upon the people, relief of which is urgently necessary, and that at the earliest moment the expenditure of the State should be revised and decreased."
    And among those who voted for that Amendment to the Address were the pre sent Prime Minister, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Foreign Secretary, Lord Morley, the Lord Chancellor, the present Attorney-General, the present Home Secretary, and many other Members of the Ministry. We have advanced very far since those days. When we remember on this side of the House how much was made of the great cry of retrenchment in the 1906 elections, I cannot but think it must be some difficulty to some hon. Members opposite to eat their words, even to the extent they are doing now. One of the great difficulties and objections always is that every successive Government and every Member on the side opposite who is elected to this House has generally some particular fancy which he wants to press forward, and which demands more expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the present day has lost that power of resistance and control which is essential to national economy, and to national finance and which seems to be entirely a matter of the history of the past. The Treasury is now ready to accept almost any proposal which will win votes for the existing Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the most promising cry for electioneering purposes, and is indisposed indeed to deny hon. Members anything. I know much expenditure is necessary. I am not behind hand in urging expenditure for social reform, but what we have to try and establish, what we have got to remember in Budget Debates, and what has got to be remembered above all things by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he ought not to be an incentive to spending right and left without adequate consideration, and that he ought to be the watchdog of national finance.
    What I complain of is that the whole of our expenditure has been increasing in a much greater ratio than our income. That is not a good sign, and it is one that should be specially noted and observed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think he has noted it. If it were a matter of a private individual's business,
    838
    I presume any wise business man would watch these matters most carefully and try and restrain and reduce expenditure. He would not at once dash into fresh expenditure without fully counting and estimating the cost, and when hon. Members opposite ask how are you to reduce expenditure, which is their constant suggestion, I answer that the real difficulty is that you have increased expenditure to the extent you have. That is the initial mistake. Personally, I am frankly proud I was one of those in this House who voted in connection with old age pensions against their being non-contributory. I always maintained that that was wrong, and that the great expenditure that was incurred was unnecessary. I think equally so as regards insurance, and that you should have begun by an experimental system seeing how it would work, and seeing what the real cost was at the time. Both in the case of old age pensions and national insurance the Government started upon expenditure without sitting down first and carefully estimating the costs. Hon. Members will remember that as regards old age pensions the present Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Debate on the 7th of May, 1908, when old age pensions were being proposed, said:—
    "The maximum cost is not likely to exceed and will probably fall short of £6,000,000 sterling a year."
    Everybody knows the expenditure on Old Age Pensions is £12,500,000 or £13,000,000. It is more than double the estimate, and that estimate was made in spite of the fact that where a similar policy had been tried in New Zealand it had gone up from £127,000 in the year 1899—the first year it was introduced—to £326,000 in 1907, eight years afterwards. These figures were available, and I should have thought if any business man sat down to estimate for the proposals made he would have made a better estimate than the Government did as to what the amount would be. That is the answer I make when I am asked what I would reduce. I say, You should never have incurred the expenditure in this form, and that you should have been much more careful in a matter of ordinary business than the present Government has been. The whole of their policy has been bad finance, and the cost has been greatly under-estimated.
    I should like to say a word or two upon taxation and representation. It is essential that taxation and representation should go together, a proposal that prob-

    839
    ably dated, historically, so far back as the time of Edward I., when the knights and barons and burgesses and clergy could not be taxed without their consent. From that time representation and taxation went together, and in the main that maxim has been maintained, not as perfectly as I could wish, but more or less up to 1909. And I believe it to be a right and proper maxim. It seems only proper that he who pays the piper, as the old adage says, has the right to call the tune. Now things have changed, and it is much more true probably to say that one class pays the piper and another calls the tune. Even in such a democratic country as Belgium, a member of Parliament there was telling me that they recognised the difference of having a property vote in certain cases, and also an educational vote. All those things would go to improve and give more effect to taxation and representation, and, though I admit that it is probably a difficult task to go back now and do it, if one was starting a democratic constitution afresh I should like to give some representation for causes and reasons such as those. With regard to the increase in the Income Tax, I am afraid that foreigners are very much less likely to invest their money in this country when there is a high Income Tax, and when they know that a great deal will be subtracted from their investments I do not believe they will invest, and to that extent our industries will be crippled.
    I am glad that to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in on the subject of incomes between £300 and £500, where he was charging a 1s. 4d. Income Tax on what he was pleased to call unearned income. That, in many cases, is a great misnomer, because it is ludicrous to say that if a man earns so much one year, spends two-thirds of it and puts by one-third, that that one-third is merely a matter of unearned income. The division between the two is not a proper one. With regard to the Death Duties, the chief comment I should like to make is that we are again revising the Death Duties; after only four years. Sir William Harcourt said that the Death Duties were a kind of deferred Income Tax. People arrange their insurances to fit in with the duties as imposed four years ago, and now you are upsetting that arrangement and creating a real hardship in many cases, and one which I think is very uncalled for. I should also like to comment on the per-
    840
    petual hostility which the Treasury show to man and wife. As regards the Death Duties they are always doing this. They make a man and his wife two separate people if it is a legacy falling from one to the other, but the Treasury turns them into one person in order to charge a high Income Tax. They are always trying to load the dice against the man and the wife, and now they are trying to do the same thing in regard to the Settlement Duty. I do not know how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to go in what he has said to-day but if there is to be an increased duty where a man leaves his estate to his wife and then to his children, and there is to be a charge both on the roan's death and upon the death of the wife as well, then it is a hard and cruel case which ought to be avoided. If this is to be done on past settlements in general, as well as future settlements, I feel strongly that we are creating an extremely bad precedent. If it were a matter of a private individual throwing over a contract for which, in legal language, "valuable consideration" has been received, you would say he was dishonourable, and you could bring an action against him in the Law Courts and force him to carry out the contract. But here because it is the State which has contracted with the maker of the settlement, the maker having paid so much for the privilege of making the settlement in that way, I do not think that the State has any right to come forward and say, "We are going to throw over this contract. We choose to withdraw the privilege, and you shall not enjoy what you have actually paid for." It may not be so unjust to do this in the future, but it is certainly unjust to do it in relation to past contracts.
    The Treasury is really becoming the national enemy of the enterprising and successful citizen. There are many noble, unobtrusive men, with high standards and high characters, successful as the world might call it, who, by their own energy and skill have made a fortune, and who have cherished the ideal of assisting some philanthropic work, some hospital or charity, perhaps, in the evening of life, or as a crowning point to their life's work. Such men are probably actuated by the feeling that they consider that to do something of this kind is a duty they owe to their Creator, who has entrusted them with the ability and the wealth which they possess, and they feel that they are responsible to Him for its proper use. The

    841
    person they are not responsible to is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sits on the Treasury Bench. Many such men are the salt of the earth, and they ought to be encouraged in every way. My quarrel with the principle of such Budgets as this is that it discourages such men and discourages enterprise; it crushes the citizen into a sort of automaton or puppet, who is expected to accept without question the ordinances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It causes much resentment and fetters and curtails individual liberty; and if taxes are made so heavy that a man treats them as though they were his charities, you will necessarily cripple and destroy that sense of duty, that keenness to help public objects, that desire to be personally and individually a benefactor to scientific research or art, and that personal initiative in philanthropy, all of which have done so much in the past to increase our national greatness.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I have risen mainly because I want to ask for some information on a point which is at present very obscure. It is about the Exchequer Balances. First of all, however, there are one or two arguments that have been used to-day which seem to me so unfair that I do not think I can pass them by. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) and a good many other speakers have attempted to belittle the achievements of the Government in the reduction of debt. Their argument has been that the Government should stand or fall by the New Sinking Fund alone. You cannot, in this way, separate the New and the Old Sinking Funds. No Government which is going to survey the reduction of debt with any coherence or any foresight can decide what it shall do with one Sinking Fund without taking into account what it has done through the other. If the Government is to be attacked, us it is being attacked, for keeping the one Sinking Fund, then it ought to be given fair credit for keeping up the other, instead of diverting its surpluses away from the National Debt. The true view on this subject was stated more than a century ago by someone whose name I am afraid I do not know, but it is the view which has been ever since accepted. The only true Sinking Fund is the excess of your revenue over your expenditure. If a Government uses that excess for the reduction of debt, whether through one Sinking Fund or through another Sinking Fund,
    842
    or whether it uses it in order to pay out of its income for an expenditure which its predecessor prodigally paid for by putting it on the National Debt, however it uses it, if only it uses it for the reduction of debt, it is justified in receiving fair credit for the achievement.
    Last year £1,000,000 was left in the Exchequer Balances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated, adding that sum to the estimated revenue of the year, that he would obtain a surplus of £185,000. This year he calculates that he will obtain a surplus of £250,000, but it seems to me clear that he will obtain a surplus far larger than that. There is £1,500,000 in the Exchequer Balances. Adding that, as we must, and as we did last year, to the estimated revenue for the year, it brings his surplus out, not at £250,000, but at £1,750,000. Both I and many other hon. Members will have suggestions to make, most of them having the effect of reducing the estimated revenue, and I am relieved to find that there is a source from which that reduction can be met, and, as a matter of fact, if it is met through that source, the size of the Exchequer Balances will be unnecessary and dangerous. The rule that you should not budget for so large a surplus as this has always been accepted, and is a very good rule, because budgeting for so large a surplus, apart from any other effect, is a standing invitation to extravagance and Supplementary Estimates.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, stated that he was going to use this £1,500,000 in order to strengthen the balances, but strengthening the balances has always meant that money was added to them permanently. It often happens, as the Committee is aware, that after a year of deficiency the balances are low, and the Treasury therefore has to incur expenses by issuing increased Treasury Bills. Under those circumstances Chancellors of the Exchequer have from time to time added money for the purpose of strengthening the balances, so as to put them back at their previous level. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on this point on Budget night, and he explained that he proposed that this money should only be in the balances for a time, and should wait there until he wanted it for some purpose or other. This raises a technical point, but I think it is one of importance, because it concerns the financial control of this House. It is an old rule that, if the surplus of the year is diverted from its

    843
    primary purpose of the Old Sinking Fund, then the purpose for which it is intended shall be stated, and it shall immediately be appropriated for that purpose. Last year the £1,000,000 that was left in the Exchequer Balances was appropriated to the general expenditure of the year, but this year the. £1,750,000 is lying in the balances unappropriated to any purpose whatever. That is undoubtedly a new precedent, and I do not think that it is a good precedent, because if you lay it down that a Chancellor of the Exchequer shall be allowed to leave the money in the Exchequer Balances, waiting to be spent, the money undoubtedly will be spent, and this precedent, if it is allowed to go unchallenged, will create a fresh incentive to extravagance and Supplementary Estimates. It is on that point I want information.
    There is one other point I desire to deal with. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), at the beginning of his speech this afternoon, expressed great alarm and anxiety because we were, as he said, in times of peace drawing upon resources which we ought to reserve for times of emergency. Where I cannot agree with him is this: Our resources in times of emergency do not depend upon this or that particular tax, but they depend upon our total stock of wealth at the time the emergency comes upon us, and if the wealth is there, then there are many more ways than one by which a Chancellor of the Exchequer faced with an emergency will be able to draw upon it. It, therefore, seems to me there is quite a simple test by which you can measure whether or not your reserve strength for time of war is being accumulated or exhausted. Our reserve strength in time of war, as far as I can see, would consist of that part of the income of the nation which is not already taken in taxation. I have got out some figures since the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and I find that in the last complete year of the last Unionist Government, 1904–5, the national expenditure was £153,000,000, and in that year the income of the country, as deduced from the census production, was £'1,900,000,000, so that the proportion of income not taken in taxation—that is to say, our war reserve—was £1,747,000,000, or 41s. 2d. per head. This year our national expenditure is £210,000,000, the income as deduced from the figures of the Registrar-General is £2,230,000,000, and the
    844
    proportion of it not taken in taxation is £2,020,000,000 as compared with £1,747,000,000, or 43s. 10d. per head as against 41s. 2d. per head in the year 1904–5. I, therefore, think the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman was very misplaced, and, so far as our having a taxable capacity to meet emergencies is concerned, we are in a stronger position to-day than when Gentlemen opposite controlled the Government, and in a stronger position than we have ever been at any period during which there are figures available.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. LONG: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the speech which he delivered earlier in the evening, complained, as he too often does, that the whole case against him and his Budget had not been delivered, and consequently the inference he drew was that those who desired to criticise and attack him preferred to make their criticisms and attacks after he had spoken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer really ought to abandon this form of attack, because there is no foundation for it. Our Debates are conducted under circumstances quite different from what they were when I first became a Member of this House. I do not suppose that these rules and circumstances commend themselves to any Members of the House except those who, for the moment, irrespective of party, occupy the Treasury Bench, and who are able to force through Parliament their own measures and secure the fulfilment of their own objects in a minimum of time, and, with, I am bound to add, a minimum of defence in the shape of speech or argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, following other distinguished Members of the Front Bench on both sides, now invariably rises before dinner. In olden days the Minister in charge of the special subject under debate invariably postponed his rising until the last possible, moment in the period of time allotted for the Debate. I am not blaming the Chancellor of the Exchequer for doing this. Both sides do it, and we know the reason is that the Minister who speaks earlier in the evening gets a better report of his speech in the newspapers the next day than those who speak later. Realising as we do, that our proceedings are of interest and, I hope, of importance to people outside this House, we have no right to complain of this new practice. On the other hand, Ministers cannot have it both ways. If they are to secure the advantage

    845
    of a full report in the newspapers, they must not attack the Opposition because the whole case is not presented I heard ray hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) ask, "Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Here again the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only following a practice which has been created in Parliament, not by both Front Benches, but in this particular instance by his own Front Bench. It is invariably the practice of Ministers to attend as little as they can, to come in just before they have to make speeches—very often, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did to-night, to make most unfair and controversial speeches—and then to absent themselves when they think there is likely to be a reply. I do not suggest that that is the case with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At all events, he is not afraid of listening to the reply, and, however much I may disagree with him, however much I may be opposed to his views and to his finance, nobody who is fair-minded will deny that he has the courage of his opinions, that he is a brave politician, and that he is never afraid of facing any difficulty, whether he be in opposition or in office. I only refer to it because he is following a practice which others have now made universal, and therefore he will not, I am sure, complain if I deal in his absence with his speech as I would have preferred to do in his presence.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was sharply divided into two quite different parts. The first part professed to be explanatory of his Budget, and to answer questions which had been addressed to him, notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Chamberlain) in one of the most closely argued and reasoned speeches I have listened to in this House. He also professed to explain to the House generally the nature of his proposals. The fact that these questions ought to be answered and that explanation was needed has been abundantly proved, not by the action of hon. Friends behind me or beside me on this Bench, but by the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by many communications which have appeared in the newspapers from men who have no association whatever with the party with which I am associated. That part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was studiously moderate in its tone. I thought he did his best to be fair
    846
    to us who interrogated him, but as an explanation of his Budget proposals it was the most barren performance to which I have ever listened. It threw no light upon a very dark position; it explained nothing; but it did one thing: it committed the Government, in one respect at all events, to a very definite programme for the future, and I shall have a word to say about it presently. The one thing that was clear from the first part of the Chancellor's speech was his pledge to the country that under his local taxation proposals in this Budget no ratepayer is to have less relief than he gets now, and that, in the vast majority of cases, if not in all, they are to get more relief than they are getting to-day. That is the position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer left that branch of the question, and I will come to it later.
    But the latter part of the Chancellor's speech was different, if I may venture to say so quite plainly, in quality, in tone, and indeed in its whole matter. He derided us and attacked us because, he said, we thought little of sentiment. I should have thought that everybody now, to whatever party they may belong, has some regard for sentiment in its proper place, quite irrespective of being a Liberal or Conservative. The Chancellor went on to make an attack upon us, based upon the most flagrant misrepresentation of the views of political opponents to which I have ever listened in this House. He claimed for hon. Gentlemen opposite and his Government that they were doing one of the greatest works to which a Government and a political party can devote themselves, namely, providing for the health of the community. He said, "This is our work; this is what we are doing, and you deride us for it." Having during the last thirty years been closely connected with this branch of public work, I waited with interest to hear how the Chancellor was going to finish his indictment. What was the first thing he did? Remember all the great names that have illumined the history of the bench opposite and of Liberal Governments! They are all at his disposal. Search "Hansard" for a hundred years, with all the great Ministers, with the Gladstones, Lows, Russells, and how many more shall I name! Surely among all this galaxy of talent on the Whig and Liberal side he could have found somebody from whom to get the text for his sermon. Not at all! In order to

    847
    prove the truth of the maxim he was laying down he had to go to a Tory ex-Prime Minister to justify his policy. Having got out of that difficulty, I thought he would have proceeded to point out to us that it is to the Tory party that the foundations of this great work are due. But he was silent on that branch of the subject, and wisely silent. Public health, Poor Law, housing, unemployment—which party laid the foundations? Which party carried the greater part of the legislation? And to which party belongs to-day the greater credit for the consequences which have followed the improvement in the health and general conditions of our people? I leave the answer to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are well able to supply it, conversant as they are with the facts of the case. I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reduced to a somewhat low ebb in defending his Budget when he has to fall back upon arguments and statements so wholly unsuitable as these were. Not content with defending his own policy by the aid of Tory quotations, what was the next thing he did? He proceeded—I am sorry to say this in his absence, but I am bound to say it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—
    Sir F. BANBURY: Why are there no Cabinet Ministers present?
    Mr. LONG: He proceeded then to most grossly and scandalously misrepresent the attitude of the party to which I belong. He said, "You, the Unionist party, think expenditure of public funds is right so long as the money is spent on armaments, but when it comes to expenditure in the interests of the people—the improvement of their health, of their dwellings, etc.—then you are opposed to it." It would be an insult to the intelligence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest that he believed one word of that. He knew that the statements he was making were false. Ho knew that there is not a shadow of foundation for them, and he knew that he was grossly misrepresenting the attitude of the Opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is why he is not here now!"] He enumerated the criticisms made from this side of the Committee. Why did he not go on to say, what is the truth, that nobody has found fault with the expenditure of public money upon either housing or sanitation and, within certain limits, upon education, or upon any other object, such, for instance, as the Insurance Act, which is contemplated by this mea-
    848
    sure. What is the basis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government's attack? It is that we are opposed to your form of taxation. Are we justified in the view we take? What is that view? It is false to say that we object to taxation being imposed for the improvement of the conditions under which the people of this country live. It is false—to put it plainly and straightly—and those who make the charge know that it is false. What we say and what my hon. Friends behind me have argued throughout this Debate is this: In the first place, we say that since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit to combine two impossible duties, namely, the administration of a public Department for social reform with the administration of the Exchequer there has been great, wilful and avoidable extravagance. We say it is very difficult to prove by fact or figure, because your Estimates are so marvellously prepared that it is very difficult to tell exactly what is the proportion of new expenditure due to what you are pleased to call social reform, and what is the natural increase in your Civil Service Estimates due to the ordinary addition of work and the ordinary increases of salary—we say that you are budgeting for a surplus next year, that you are asking for more money than you really want to meet the actual expenditure of the country, if that expenditure were subjected to a close and rigorous form of economy.
    It is odd, indeed, that these doctrines should be preached from this side of the House, for, during the first twenty-five years that I was in the House of Commons, they were the invariable speeches, which we in office heard made from this side, and which, even when your party came into office, were preached from the opposite side in answer to increased demands for taxation. The one theory then held as sacred was that the guardian of the public purse should not be the head of a spending Department. We complain, first of all, that your expenditure is excessive, and consequently you are asking for more money from the taxpayer than you are entitled to ask for if you base your argument on what this country actually needs for its legitimate annual expenses. We go further, and we say that you are providing this money by a system of taxation which is bound to break down. You are finding it in two ways—by your Income Tax and by your Death Duties. I hope to show that these

    849
    two methods are not reliable, that you have already got very nearly as far as you can go, and that you are rapidly approaching the time, if you have not reached it now, when this method of taxation raised as you have raised it, will prove to be the greatest disaster with which this country, as a whole, has ever yet been confronted, because it will mean that you have brought her to the end of her development. I am familiar with the argument that the wealth of this country is very great. Hon. Members are fond of talking about billions. I am happy to say I have never been anything but an optimist. I have never preached the policy of ruin. I believe this country is enormously rich. I believe her power of bearing expenditure, if necessary and legitimate, is almost unlimited and unequalled by that of any other country in the world. But if this power is not going to be squandered you must avoid the pitfall into which you have fallen now of making your taxation unjust and inequitable, and therefore giving to anyone not only an inducement but an actual invitation to evade taxation if they possibly can. You are getting your money by a large extension of your Income Tax. You are carrying this principle too far. Do we stand alone in this view? Will the Attorney-General tell us why to-day that Front Bench holds different views from those which the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, held in 1906. He then used these words:—
    "In regard to the Income Tax. I do not hesitate to associate myself with the declaration of more than one of my predecessors, that Income Tax at a unified rate of 1s. in the £ at a time of peace is impossible to justify. It is a burden on trade of the country which in the long run affects not only profits but wages."
    Again, in his Budget speech on 8th April, 1907, he said:—
    "The Income Tax is really a twofold tax. It is a tax on property and a tax on earnings."
    What becomes of the criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to our attack when they tell us that we are opposing this Budget because it is a tax on the rich in the interests of the poor. The language which, the Prime Minister held in 1906 and 1907 is precisely the language which we have been using on this side of the House to-day, and if the arguments that he used were good enough for him they are good enough for us now.
    So much for our attack upon basing yourself solely upon Income Tax. I come back for a moment to the question of ex-

    850
    travagance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night made a very interesting, admission. He was dealing with the tax on foreign investments. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) indicated that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had largely underestimated the produce. What was the right hon. Gentleman's reply? He paid a well deserved tribute to the wonderful ability and foresight of the officials of the Treasury. I have known them personally, and by name for thirty years. I have never ceased to wonder at their remarkable sagacity in making forecasts. The right hon. Gentleman said that "this forecast was given to me by men who are experts at the work. I hope it may turn out to be inaccurate, and that it will produce more." Yes, any Chancellor of the Exchequer is justified in taking the advice of his experts, and if the eggs which they say are silver turn out to be golden, so much the better for him. But I should have liked to hear the opinion of some of the experts as to the need of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for all the money he is demanding.
    I should have liked to hear the opinion of these experts upon the question of control of subordinate Departments in regard to the expenditure, and upon the framing of certain measures under which, as we heard just now, £20,000,000 of expenditure is necessary, where only a few millions, about half a dozen, were contemplated originally as the cost to the country. That remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ominous. We believe that there has been tremendous extravagance in connection with Acts of Parliament. We believe, therefore, that you are asking more money than you require, and asking for it, as I have pointed out, on unsound grounds. We base our opinion on the opinion of the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have never had the honour of serving at the Treasury, but I have served in many other public Departments, and I can speak of the action of the Treasury in controlling expenditure from the point of view of one who has suffered under the harrow. I know what it means. When this House was dealing with the Insurance Act, and Old Age Pensions Act, I ventured, as an old President of the Local Government Board, to point out that both of these measures ought to have been introduced by the Local Government Board. They are both measures closely connected with local government. I said, also, that they ought to be administered by that

    851
    Department. What has happened? You have had the man who has to find the money controlling the expenditure. Anybody who has been at the head of a public Department knows perfectly well from experience that when you have to pass a Bill through Parliament and want a Grant of money, you naturally estimate that Grant at a sum which you think would be regarded as a generous contribution and which would make the thing work. You go to the Treasury and state the amount you want, and the Treasury says, "You must do with so much less." When it comes to administration, you make constant demands for more money, and the Treasury says, "You must do with so much less." Why? Because the Treasury is the guardian of the public purse, or it has been hitherto. It is the duty of the Treasury to exercise constant supervision in the public interest over their colleagues and over Ministers. Where is that supervision gone now? It is impossible. I defy any Minister to say that that supervision and control now remains. It is absurd to suggest that it does.
    Mr. MONTAGUindicated dissent.
    Mr. LONG: What docs the hon. Gentleman mean? He asks us to believe seriously that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who happens to be for the moment the right hon. David Lloyd George, is in this position: He, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, controls the expenditure. He as head of the Treasury is responsible for the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act and the Insurance Act. He, as Minister responsible for these Acts, thinks that certain expenditure is necessary. Then he goes to the right hon. David Lloyd George, across the Lobby, and asks him to approve of that expenditure. Is that the same thing as a distinct Minister responsible for his Department going to the Chancellor, who has nothing to think of but the safeguarding of the public purse.
    Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Treasury does not now control the expenditure of public Departments. But the Treasury does control—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. LONG: Nobody doubts that in certain cases the Treasury does exercise control, but the point is: Does the Treasury to-day exercise the same control that at used to do?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes.
    Mr. LONG: It is absolutely ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to say that it does. In the days to which I refer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the controlling official over every Department, and in the case of these particular measures, I will undertake to say that, under the system to which I have referred, the expenditure would have been materially reduced, and the same benefits would have been received because we would have had the check of the Exchequer over the spending Department. It is absurd for the Government to pretend that the same controlling authority exists to-day as when the Exchequer was a separate controlling Department over the spending Departments. The result is that we have got the extravagance of which we complain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to attack those of us who have pointed out that the policy of the Government in regard to Income Tax is unjust and dangerous, so long as you retain your present system of arriving at the income of the individual. Take the case of income derived from land. I believe that the Chancellor, if he were here, would be amenable to argument on the subject, because he has shown in his Budget a certain indication of a desire to deal with agricultural properties in a fair manner. But you are putting a very heavy additional tax upon the income of the individual. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases in this country of the smaller properties where there is practically no margin, where the income has got to be paid. And how it is going to be paid. I do not care what accounts you take I am perfectly certain that there is no landowner, small or great, who would object to show his accounts to-morrow to any Member of the Front Bench, or any official whom they would like to send down. They would find that far the greater part of that income—and I speak with some practical knowledge—that in nearly all cases practically the whole income goes on keeping the estate going.
    What does it go on? Out of every £100 where does the Committee think the £80 goes? It goes on wages to labourers and workmen in the district. You are going by your Super-tax and your Income Tax to put a burden upon those landowners who have not got incomes from other extraneous sources, and they can only pay, as pay they must, by making reductions in labour. The Chancellor made an astounding statement to-day. He said that since

    853
    these taxes had been introduced everything had prospered abundantly. Where does he get his information from. Is it from the Board of Trade figures? Will he find them tell him that in any country village? One of the saddest things I know in our country villages to-day, in this time of national prosperity, is that the very best of the men are leaving them for our Colonies. Why? Because the old source of employment has been cut off. Let the Committee remember that in many cases, owing to other Acts of Parliament of which I do not complain, if labour is reduced it will not be the young men who will be cut off, but the older men who are no longer able to give a full return for their wages. Therefore, the Prime Minister, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke with absolute knowledge and in an unanswerable form when he said that to carry the Income Tax beyond a certain level would be to hit at, not the rich, but the poor; not the employers, but labour. Those are the Prime Minister's words, which are as true to-day as then. I say, therefore, that by making this tax unduly burdensome you are hitting a blow at working men, you are reducing employment, you are aiding "migration. Personally, I think there is a great deal to be said for emigration. I am one of those who have visited several of the Colonies, and I believe the conditions and opportunities there are far better for the average workman than they are here. But I am not thinking now of the individual, I am thinking of my own country.
    It is a very bad thing, I submit, to make as the standard of your financial system one which has already done such harm in many of our country districts, and which, I believe, in consequence of the changes you are making, will do still greater harm in future. One word with regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in regard to settled and unsettled property. He proposes to abolish the distinction between settled and unsettled property, to the disadvantage of the owner of settled property, and I agree with every "word the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) said on the point, for I believe, in doing that, the right hon. Gentleman is committing a breach of faith. I want to look at it from another point of view. Before he was a great Statesman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a distinguished Member of the legal profession, and he knows the
    854
    difference between settled and unsettled property far better than I do. I venture to put this to him, and to the Attorney-General: The difference comes to this, that with unsettled property the owner for the time being can do practically what he likes. He can sell his land and use the money to provide for the younger children or to start them in business, or he can seek profitable investments in other parts of the world. With settled property, the owner cannot deal with it in that way. He has to go to the trustees, who are bound by the law. As trustees they cannot allow the money to be used in those various ways. Yet you are going to put the owners of these two classes of property on the same level for the purposes of taxation. I submit that the least you can do—and we should welcome it, because it would be only fair if you are going to deprive the tenant for life of settled property of the small advantage which he has hitherto enjoyed and for which he has paid—is to repeal the Settled Land Act, and say that everything which now binds the unfortunate tenants for life to these particular properties is void, because you deprive them of the advantage which they had hitherto enjoyed. If you are going to do one thing, at least you should be prepared to do the other, too, and put the two classes of property on the same footing.
    I regard as one of the worst features of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals the Death Duties. I am not complaining of the Death Duties, because they will break up landed estates. In certain cases of smaller estates, there can be no doubt that the result will be to break many of them up. That may be the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I do not know whether it is, but for my purpose it does not matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself practically admitted that would be the case. In an interesting passage of his speech, he told us that owing to the fact that real estate is frequently of a non-fluid character, it cannot be realised quickly, but he had in contemplation a new system under which the Death Duties should be mortgaged at Government rates. I welcome the suggestion, and I think it may be useful, but I am bound to say I do not really care for any Government proposal which contemplates an eternal system of mortgage, and I do not think it is one which ought to find any general acceptance. The right hon. Gentleman knows that those properties cannot be realised, and that in many cases the money could only

    855
    be found by loan on mortgage. Does he seriously ask this Committee and the country to take it from him, as the head of finance, that he believes a system to be sound and just which necessitates a universal system of mortgage? I welcome the admission because it shows he appreciates to some degree the special difficulties of agricultural realties. I implore him, if he thinks because of that that any tax is just, before a final vote is given on this question of Death Duties, to look at it from the point of view of common justice. Sir William Harcourt brought in his great Budget in 1894, and I remember discussing with him here the question of the provision for the Death Duties. His answer was, and he gave us many figures on the subject, that persons could make provision by life insurance. We then argued with him that in that case that amount for life insurance so earmarked ought not to be aggregated in the gross for the payment of Death Duties swelling the amount. He pointed out that the Death Duties were, as he considered, moderate in their character, and could be secured by life insurance. Now mark the action of the Government. To-day they are increasing those Death Duties to an enormous extent. Take the case of two owners of property of the same value and conditions as near as you can and one aged twenty-five and the other aged sixty. The twenty-five has the prospect of, say, forty years' enjoyment of his property, and in addition he can insure against the Death Duties at a moderate sum, which he can well afford to pay. How about the man who is fifty-five or sixty, or sixty-five. He is absolutely prohibited, and there is no margin to meet the enormous demand made in order to insure his life; and yet you are asking us to believe not only that this immense increase is a just tax, but also to believe that it is fair as between man and man. I venture to say it is absolutely unfair, and so unfair that I cannot help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he considers it, will realise that he is taking a step which he cannot justify, however great his need for raising extra money.
    I am left no time in which to say anything about one branch of the Chancellor's speech, namely, his reference to local taxation. The Chancellor told us to-day that the Attorney-General will be responsible for the Bill which is going to effect the
    856
    change. I am sure it was my own stupidity and not the want of any clearness on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the explanation which he gave of this matter made it quite impossible for me to appreciate what is to be the effect of the change. We gathered from his original Budget speech that this Grant of money is to be dependant upon the enactment of certain conditions. To-night he told us that one of these conditions is the adoption of a new system of valuation, and that, while there will be a temporary arrangement, until the new system is adopted there will be no permanent benefit derivable from this relief. Then he gave us a very interesting account of the relief which is to be derived by different counties. Having given us five counties I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us a return, with as little delay as possible, showing what the actual relief is, according to the Government estimate, in all the counties of Great Britain. Apart from that, I hope the Attorney-General will tell us now exactly what he is going to propose in the Revenue Bill to do with valuation and assessments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, made a very remarkable statement. He said: "We want a new system of valuation. There are many houses which, although they cost thousands of pounds, are rated at a mere nothing." The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, as I have said, a distinguished member of the legal profession. Surely he knows that the cost of a house, farm, or shop, has no more to do with the assessment for rating than with the kingdom of the moon. He surely knows that it ought not to have any such relation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] An hon. Member dissents. What is the principle that he wishes to lay down? That any man, who may shortly find a lodging in Bedlam, may squander a fortune on building an enormous house which can never find a tenant, and in which nobody will live, even for nothing, and that that house is to be rated on the amount it cost to build, and not on the amount at which it will let. Really, this is to talk of a system which could never be followed.
    You have now a double system of valuation. There are other valuations, but for the purpose of my argment I will take two—the valuation by the county councils and county boroughs, and the valuation for purely local purposes by the municipal authorities. There is an assessment com-

    857
    mittee, locally appointed, with local knowledge. How are you going to deal with that? What is to be your future system? Are you, by two or three Clauses, going to supersede the work of the assessment committee and establish instead thereof a centralised body which, acting under the instructions of the Government, is to value property as they think it ought to be valued? I will not discuss the matter now; this is not the time. But the country ought to know in advance what is the principle—I ask to know more—of the system you are going to adopt. You ought to warn the local authorities to-day—because in a few weeks' time you are going to ask for their approval or disapproval—of what is the principle of the change you are going to make. You ought to let them know exactly what you propose. Do you propose to supersede the existing authorities? Do you propose to supersede their assessments. If so, what is to be your area? "Who is to be your valuing authority?
    These are not details or matters of small importance which you have not thought out. If you have made up your minds to this change and the conditions upon which the receipt of your Grants is to be dependent, it is clear that you must know the main principles upon which your reform is to proceed, and you ought to be ready and willing to tell us them to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a reference at the end of his speech to our being unwilling to support sanitation, housing reform, etc. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was hard driven for a peroration when he fell back upon such a broken reed. What was the language used by a spokesman of the Front Bench on this very question of housing only a few years ago, by the Minister who told us that he spoke with the assent of his colleagues, and who received the approval of the Prime Minister at that box for what he had said? He was, too, defended by the Prime Minister in one, if not two, deputatations. At that moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer was silent. What was the language? Our housing proposals asked for what? A Grant of money out of the Exchequer of one million, while now we are told it is to be four millions. The hon. Member for Dudley on behalf of his colleagues put forward practicable proposals before this House. How were they described by the right hon. Gentleman who was then President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns)? They
    858
    were described as containing a vicious principle which the Government opposed.
    The Government are apt pupils. They have very soon abandoned their old views of a couple of years ago, and have put forward to-day the views that we have seen as the foundation stone of the whole of what they call their social reform policy. We, both in Opposition and in Office, have shown by our speeches and practical work, our desire to see this and every other branch of social reform adopted by the country, and I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is driven very hard when he thinks it necessary to make charges of that kind against us and finds it convenient to forget the language used by his own colleague, speaking in his name, during the present Parliament, and within the last two years. I have only to apologise to the Committee for having taken up so much time, but the subject is an extremely difficult one, and there is a very wide field for discussion. I have passed very rapidly over some branches of it. At the same time, I feel I have made an undue demand upon the patience of the Committee. I only want to say, in conclusion, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I say in his presence, because I have said it in his absence—has grossly and scandalously misrepresented us, our policy, and our speeches, when he says that we are opposed to that social reform which is the greater part of his Budget. What we contend is that under his regime he has allowed an avoidable increase of extravagance in public expenditure, and that consequently he is faced with a greater demand for money than he ought properly to be faced with. We say that he is budgetting for a surplus next year, in order that he may have money to distribute amongst the people, in the hope that the people will distribute other things between himself and his followers. We say that it would have been possible to confer all these benefits upon the people with much lower expenditure, and we say that you are levying your taxes in an unjust and burdensome fashion, that you are offering to the people of this country actual inducements to evade and avoid the taxation, which is the worst thing any Government can do, not only in the interests of present-day finance, but in the interests of that stability and permanency of our financial institution, which ought to be the first wish of our country, and the first desire of every Government to protect.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The right hon. Gentleman began by pointing out that in recent years our practice in these Debates had tended to change, and that at such a late hour as this it would not be the Minister primarily responsible, but one of his colleagues who replied at the end of the Debate. That is so, and inasmuch as my right hon. Friend had spoken earlier in the Debate, it falls on me to say at once on his behalf that he greatly regrets that he was compelled to be absent in the earlier part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but that he was absent on urgent Treasury business which had to be settled to-night, and he wishes me to express his personal regret that he was not able to be present. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his interesting speech, has dealt in sub stance with two matters. He attacks the total figure of the Budget for the year, and he attacks it primarily by alleging, without giving any specific details, that it is due to extravagance and lax administration; and, in the second place, he suggests that the methods which we propose for raising this great sum of money, for it is an enormous sum of money, are methods that could be improved upon. As regards the first comment, I am relieved when I remember that he accompanied it by asserting that my right hon. Friend is obviously budgeting for a surplus, and that it is quite certain that the Estimates he put forward are in that respect too low. It is only twelve months ago that a comment was made upon my right hon. Friend from the benches opposite of an exactly contrary kind. Twelve months ago he was told in almost pontifical language by no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) that it was obvious really that somewhere or other—he was not, of course, prepared to put his finger upon the precise place—his Estimate was in the opposite direction. I see the right hon. Gentleman, for example, said, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill of last year, that my right hon. Friend
    "had framed his Estimates and Budget in a condition of hopefulness such as becomes recklessness in a man with the responsibilities which he carries."
    Twelve months having passed, it turns out that that criticism was wholly without foundation, and indeed my right hon. Friend's estimate, if it erred at all erred on the other side, and in these circum-
    860
    stances we must bear with such composure as we can the equally confident assertion now made that he is budgeting obviously with an eye to a surplus. As to that time will show, and it is not possible by a course of argument to prove one thing or the other.
    I should like to say one or two words on the size of this figure itself. This year will certainly be remarkable in the history of our national finance because the Budget for the year does, unfortunately, pass beyond the two hundred million limit. Here we have a Budget of £209,000,000, and if one could confine oneself simply to a comparison of figures, and does not submit those figures to a certain examination in order that we may really get them in a condition to compare them, the contrast is certainly very remarkable. The Committee will allow me to give two or three figures, probably already familiar. In 1880 the expenditure of the year was only £83,000,000. In the year of Mr. Gladstone's death, 1898, the Budget was £102,000,000, and to that must be added the local taxation account. In the first year of this Liberal administration the Budget was in round figures £150,000,000, and therefore at first sight there is force in the criticism that here in the course of eight years you have arrived at the stupendous figure of more than £200,000,000. In order that a comparison may be made, two large considerations must be borne in mind. One of them was most admirably put in this Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Holmfirth (Mr. Sydney Arnold), in a speech he made the other day. He compared the figures of ten years ago with the figures of to-day, and he pointed out that if you took ten years ago, the last completed Conservative year, and deducted the expenses of running the Post Office, that same rate of taxation, if it had not been altered in the direction of a higher rate or subsequent exemption, the same system of taxation which then produced £136,000,000 would this year have produced about £156,000,000. The real comparison, therefore, is between £156,000,000 which our machinery of ten years ago would have produced, and that much of our present figure as remains after deducting the expense of running the Post Office and the like.
    11.P.M.
    The two figures compared are £156,000,000 on the one hand and £183,000,000 on the other hand. That shows a difference of £27,000,000 and it is right that we should ask ourselves how is that to be be justified? But in the inter-

    861
    val the financial provision of the year, instead of dealing merely, as it used to do, with national defence, central administration, and with a limited sum for one or two other matters, such as education, has brought within its ambit a whole series of national burdens which ten years ago were quite outside the national balance-sheet. It would be the greatest mistake to say that bringing these national burdens within the national account was adding some new burdens upon the shoulders of our countrymen. The burden was always there, and it is a burden which our countrymen have always had to bear of impoverished old age, destitution, sickness among persons of small wage, and unemployment. That burden has always been there. The real thing which has happened in the interval is not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown new burdens upon the community, but that he has brought these new subjects of social and beneficial services inside the account of the year, and has provided an organised treatment of them under the control of those who represent the constituencies in this House instead of leaving them to unorganised and sporadic efforts. If I have that £27,000,000 to account for as the real difference between ten years ago and to-day, it is a striking circumstance that if you take old age pensions, the state contribution to the two parts of the National Insurance Act, Labour Exchanges, and £1,500,000 for roads, which after all involves the giving of further employment, and certain new additional services, you will get almost that £27,000,000 which is the only thing to be justified if one compares today with ten years ago. Now I come to the question of how that money is to be raised. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that he did not approve of our way of raising it. He quoted the Prime Minister—I thought I caught the quotation, but he will correct me if I am wrong—as expressing the view in 1906 that a uniform Income Tax of 1s. in the £ was too high to be justified in time of peace.
    Mr. LONG: I read it out.
    Sir J. SIMON: The whole point of he quotation is in the word "uniform." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I see nothing in our present proposals which in the least conflicts with that.
    Mr. LONG: I read both quotations. You have referred to one only.
    Sir J. SIMON: It may be. Let me have it. [Extract handed to the right hon. Gentleman.] I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is providing me with a quotation of a quotation. It is a letter—
    Mr. LONG: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it is not accurate?
    An HON. MEMBER: You borrow it, then criticise it.
    Sir J. SIMON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that I should criticise it before I borrow it? I notice, I say, that it is a quotation of a quotation. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, quoted from a letter written to the "Sunday Times," which gives an expression from the Prime Minister's Budget speech of 1906. The quotation is:—
    "In regard to the Income Tax, I do not hesitate to associate myself with the declarations of more than one of my predecessors, that an Income Tax of a uniform rate of 1s. at a time of peace is impossible to justify"—
    Mr. LONG: I read it.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am reading it again. And the 1007 quotation which is supposed to cancel the word "uniform"—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Finish it. Read the next sentence.
    Sir J. SIMON: Let me read it exactly. I did not intend to omit anything material.
    "It is a burden on the trade of the country which, in the long run, affects not only profits but wages."
    [Hear, hear.]. I will read the other quotation in a moment, but allow me to observe, if it indeed be, as in the absence of proof to the contrary, I presume it is, a fair extract, it must, obviously, to every body mean that a uniform 1s. Income Tax interferes with the trade of the country, and, therefore, if there be such an Income Tax, that it ought not to be uniform on earned and unearned income.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if the high Income Tax is not uniform it has no effect upon wages, while if it is uniform it does?
    Sir J. SIMON: I did not suggest anything of the sort.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then there is no point in laying stress upon the word "uniform."
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my point. I have done my best to do what he asked me to do. I say again that the

    863
    Prime Minister there, in 1906, is emphasizing the fact that a uniform Income Tax of 1s. is a thing which he regards as open to criticism. It was following upon that that the very same right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House introduced in a subsequent year the distinction between earned and unearned income. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division says: "Read the second quotation and that will show you." Well, here it is:—
    "The Income Tax is really a twofold tax: it is a tax on property and a tax on earnings."
    I hope I have done full justice to the right hon. Gentleman's quotation.
    Mr. LONG: In thus reading the quotation the right hon. Gentleman has done considerable injustice to me. He has addressed himself to a supposed presentment of mine of this quotation as dealing simply with Income Tax. But I was dealing with the charge made by his Friends that this is a tax upon the rich in favour of the poor, and that we so resented it I quoted this to show that in the opinion of the; Prime Minister the Income Tax was a charge both on capital and on labour.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid we must agree to differ whether the word "uniform" had anything to do with the issue. Those who have followed the Prime Minister's speeches in this House well know that, unlike most Members, he does not use epithets without some meaning. May I just point out how the proposal to raise this money by Income Tax strikes some of us. There is a very remarkable, a very striking, resemblance between the sum of money which has been raised in times past by Income Tax and the sum of money which has been spent from year to year on the Navy. The contrast between the two figures is very remarkable. If you go back to Mr. Goschen's Budget you will find the sum raised by Income Tax was between thirteen and fourteen millions, and an almost exactly corresponding amount was then spent on the Navy. In 1906–7 the Navy cost £31,400,000, and the sum raised by Income Tax was £32,000,000. In the next year the Navy cost £32,000,000, and the Income Tax realised £33,000,000. In 1912–13 the Navy cost £44,300,000, and the Income Tax and Super-tax produced £44,700,000. Last year the Navy cost £46,000,000, and the Income Tax and Super-tax produced £47,000,000. The extra sum we have to raise this year is admittedly very largely due
    864
    to the fact that in view of the Government there is a demand for an increased expenditure on the Navy, and that demand has been supported very largely by the very people who, represented by the right hon. Gentleman, are criticising the amount we are raising in Income Tax. I have no doubt the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was present at a meeting last February, when this resolution was carried:—
    "That this meeting of citizens of London begs an assure the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government of the support of the commercial community in any measures, financial or other, that may be necessary to ensure the continued supremacy of the Navy and the adequate protection of the trade of the country."
    I do not in the least complain of the resolution. The Government take the view that money should be spent on the Navy. But what I do complain of is when we again endeavour to adjust the Income Tax and the Super-tax in order to produce the sum needed primarily for the purpose of an increase in the Navy Estimates of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, the same hon. Gentlemen are now coming down and saying, "If you attempt to raise money; in the way you seek to raise it, then you are carrying through a policy which we stoutly resist." The truth is that, broadly speaking, just as the Income Tax from time to time has been found sufficient to meet these enormous demands for naval defence, so, in the same way, the sum that has been found from the Death Duties is roughly proportionate to the sum that is needed for the services of the debt and for the New Sinking Fund. Four years ago we raised £21,000,000 from the Death Duties, and £21,000,000 was the sum required to meet the Consolidated Fund Services which were wanted to pay interest on debt and pay off capital under the New Sinking Fund. To-day we are raising £25,000,000 on the one hand, and are spending £25,000,000 on the other. When we are told that the Death Duties are exactions on the capital of individuals, and that they have to be provided for by savings of income or by insurance, we are entitled to point out, in answer to that, that while that may be, within certain limits, true, yet that sum closely corresponds with the sum that year by year is used in order to reduce the capital liabilities of the nation, just as the Income Tax is a contribution levied on property which more or less corresponds with the amount which we are spending in order to defend more particularly the

    865
    propertied interests of this country. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] Therefore it is true that the Death Duties may, not unfairly, be regarded as an attempt to secure from time to time sufficient sums to reduce the capital liabilities of the nation.
    In the next place the right hon. Gentleman had something to say as to the purposes to which this money was to be devoted. I did not understand him to say that he objects to any of those purposes in themselves—I desire to be entirely fair, and to state the case without any reservation—I believe the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are honestly anxious to promote the objects for which this money is intended. He asked me a question or two about the relief of rates. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman will be the last man in this Committee to deny the immense urgency and importance of securing relief from Imperial resources in respect of rates. Only two years ago, in this House, he was laying that down in language quite as strong as any which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used. I notice that he said, with that frankness which we know is part of his character, that—
    "These are Matters which call for immediate decision by Parliament. I know what this means. It means, obviously, some increase in taxation. Everybody dislikes that. The difficulty is undoubtedly a very great one, and I do not wonder that any Chancellor of the Exchequer hesitates before undertaking the burden."
    The time has come, and more than come, in which that urgent matter should be dealt with. Then the right hon. Gentle-referred to the fact that in a Bill we shall introduce this year we desire to accelerate valuation. Let me say this: I do not at all take the view that the valuation that has already been made under the Finance Act, 1909, is of no value for the purposes which we are now considering—on the contrary it is of the greatest value. I believe it will be found possible, with very slight adjustments, and with, of course, provisions for bringing it up to date, and keeping it up to date, to provide, thanks to the work that has been done by the Valuation Department, and to provide promptly for the ascertainment of the real values which are necessary for the purposes of a proper rating system. It is for that reason that the Bill we shall introduce this year will not merely be a Revenue Bill. It will be a Valuation and Revenue Bill, and will contain within its Clauses not merely those concessions which the right hon. Gentleman will remember were part of the Revenue Bill of last year, but also provisions which will bring forward, and that at the earliest
    866
    possible moment, the valuation which is essential if we are really going to effect improvements in the rating system.
    Mr. LONG: What about appeals?
    Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into minute details, but it appears to me that even if the valuation itself were completed it would be possible to use that valuation on the distinct understanding that there would be a right to challenge appeals before the actual appeals themselves had in all cases been settled, and in that respect that is the practice which already obtains. I present this to the Committee, that this Budget is, after all, the lineal descendant of the Budget of 1909. It possibly explains the criticism which some hon. Gentlemen opposite make of it. I willingly admit that its parentage is similar, and that its lineaments are the same. It is intended to represent, and to apply, the same set of principles. It is directed to the same kind of objects, and we are not surprised that it meets with a somewhat similar kind of criticism, but the criticism that it meets with, so far as we can tell yet, is by no means so full-blooded as the criticism of the 1909 Budget. A good deal has happened in the interval. For one thing, I believe many opponents of the Budget of 1909 have come to realise that the language they used about it, the prophecies of ruin which they were so ready to put forward, the assurances which they then gave, was that this meant the definite destruction of many interests—[HON. MEMBERS: "So it has!"] I may be wrong, but I did believe, until they contradicted me now, that they thought their language then was exaggerated. Then they still think it? In the second place, I honestly believe that in this interval of five years there has been a great change in the view of those who criticised the Budget of 1909 as to the real value of these new social and beneficial services which that object was partly designed to promote. I do not in the least join in any suggestion which may be made that hon. Members opposite are not sincerely devoted to the causes to which that Budget was primarily devoted, but that does not exhaust the explanation. The real explanation of this diminuation of violent criticism depends on two things. It depends, first of all, on this point, that now in 1914, we are in a position that did not exist in 1909. The Budget of the year is determined finally in the House of Commons. It

    867
    depends, in the second place, on this. Five years ago there were many hon. Members opposite who were fervently convinced that they knew a better alternative than ours. Those were the days when the Budget of the year was to be provided by putting taxes on bread and meat. That programme not being indeed abandoned, because hon. Members do not abandon things until they change their opinions, but postponed, the real truth is that there is no alternative to the method which we now propose, and if it be true that the objects which we have in view are objects which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends wish to serve, if he and they are unable to point to any item in this expenditure, the object of which they challenge, if it be true that there be no other way of raising this money, the Budget is justified as a result of this Debate.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked "What is the criticism on what we have spent?" The criticism is that the Government have increased the nation's taxation by £60,000,000 a year and, added to that, what the people have to pay individually under the Insurance Act. The result is that the condition of the greatmass of our working people is admittedly worse than when the Government camein. In a long peroration the Chancellor of the Exchequer threatened us with revolution. Let me venture to suggest to him that if we have a revolution the first men that the people will hang will be the Ministers of the present Government. [Interruption.] I am, of course, sorry to keep hon. Gentlemen up, but at the same time I may fairly point out that the Prime Minister did away with the Eleven o'clock Rule, and that this is the only chance we have. We were directly challenged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore as we all get £400 a year I think we ought to bear up for another half-hour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the trade of the country last year reached a higher point than it had ever done before, and that unemployment was less than it had ever been. He forgot to add that the number of our best and strongest people who had fled from our fool trade system as if it were a pestilence was also the largest on record. In the same speech he told us that an immense number of men and women were engaged in a prolonged struggle against
    868
    debility and disease, much of it due, to low wages, and that hundreds and thousands of children went daily to school in a state of semi-starvation. Surely in a year of unprecedented prosperity in trade this is a very bad record. [Cheers.]
    I fail to see what hon. Gentlemen on the other side are cheering. Surely there must be something very wrong in a system of taxation which drives 300,000 of our best and strongest people out of the country in one year and starves millions of those who remain. The unemployment statistics apply only to a very limited number of people. The Chancellor told us about eighteen months ago that there were millions of our people who did not earn enough to give them sufficient strength to do their daily task. In 1904 he told us that you could not feed the hungry with statistics of commercial prosperity or stop the pangs of hunger by telling a man of the enormous number of cheques that had passed through the clearing house. Surely that is exactly what hon. Gentlemen opposite do when they are continually telling us of the enormous prosperity which we have under what they call the Free Trade system. The Chancellor of Exchequer's way of raising money is to put the whole of the import taxation on tobacco and the kinds of food which we cannot produce ourselves, on which, therefore, we have to pay the whole of the import taxation because there is no competition with any supply produced in this country. This adds considerably to the cost of living and does nothing to provide our people with either employment or wages.
    All the other great nations of the world and our self-governing colonies are raising large revenue and at the same time encouraging their own industries by putting duties on foods which do compete with their own industries, and they thus supply their own people with work and wages. These countries moreover raise a large amount of revenue by import duties on luxuries and articles which the working people and the poor do not buy, so that therefore the working people are not affected at all, while on the other hand we in this country, just because we are tied down to what hon. Gentlemen are pleased to call a Free Trade system, put the whole of our import duties on food, drink and tobacco, and the working people and the poor have to pay the greater part of these duties. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) was perfectly right when he said the other day that of

    869
    the £75,000,000 which are to be raised this year in import and excise duties, £60,000,000 would be paid by people below the Income Tax limit—in other words by the working people and the poor. The hon. Member for Blackburn expressed himself as very anxious to tax rich people in this country almost to any extent. The curious thing about his policy is that, like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he absolutely refuses to allow any duty to be put on imported luxuries which our working people can produce, even if sent in by rich capitalists abroad. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may get very impatient, but they are wasting their time. I have got something to say and I will say it, and the more they interrupt me the longer I shall be.
    May I point out to the hon. Member foils Blackburn that by putting import duties on imported competing luxuries, not only would those duties not hurt the workpeople and the poor at all, but they would increase the demand for labour in this country, and therefore would help to raise wages, and at the same time provide revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not wooden-headed and old fashioned, and he knows this perfectly well, but he is tied down by a Free Trade Government and cannot help himself. Take £1,000,000's worth of luxuries: if you put an import duty of 20 per cent.—[Interruption]—that might very well cause the manufacture of £2,000,000's worth of these luxuries in this country, and provide the workpeople here £1,000,000 in wages, formerly paid to people abroad. You would get the taxation on £2,000,000 of these luxuries produced at home, and which, if only reckoned at 12 per cent., would amount to £240,000, and you would have the duties on £2,000,000 of imported luxuries, amounting to £400,000, making £640,000 altogether, besides paying in this country at least £1,000,000 in wages to our own people instead of to people abroad. This is the system adopted by all other great nations and by our own self-governing Dominions. It is very difficult to understand why Labour Members, is they really want to help those they are supposed to represent, continually vote for the free, and in reality to subsidised, importation of the luxuries of the rich, and also continually vote for the heavy taxation on the imported necessaries and simple luxuries of the poor. That is the extraordinary part about it.
    870
    May I quote the hon. Member for Blackburn? He tells us the reason why they vote in this extraordinary manner, and writes in the "Christian Commonwealth" that the Labour Members sit in Parliament because in four-fifths of the cases some understanding or arrangement has been made with the Liberals, and that it was ridiculous to expect the Labour Members to quarrel seriously with a party by whose goodwill they held their seats. That is not, I think, a very creditable reason for a party which by its title claims to be independent. I really can hardly be surprised at Mr. Blatchford writing in the "Clarion" and describing them as the Labour Flunkeys of the Liberal party. The Prime Minister has been already quoted as to the Income Tax being a tax on wages. If there is no other way of raising the money I certainly should not oppose it, but surely there is an alternative, because the Prime Minister himself has said that the Tariff was an alternative. It does seem to me that the proposed taxation for this year of 30 millions from Estate Duties and Land Taxes as well as 56½ millions from Income Tax must be a very heavy burden on industry and must necessarily reduce employment and keep down wages. I really do not see how it can be otherwise.
    If you put very heavy taxation on a man he has to reduce his expenditure somehow. He cannot help it and there is no way he can get out of it. I do think that as this money is required for the upkeep of our country and our markets outsiders ought to pay their fair share of it, when they use our markets for the sale of their competing goods. I should very much like to know if the hon. Member for Blackburn has any objection to that. It costs us 300 millions per year for Imperial and local taxation for the defence and upkeep of our markets and it appears to me a very bad way of raising our taxation by putting the whole burden of it on to our producers and not charging competing foreign goods anything towards the upkeep of our markets which they use. We are giving them a present of markets which cost us 300 millions. Surely the result of it is that we have very severely to tax additionally our own people in order that foreigners may not pay anything at all. There cannot be any doubt that local and Imperial taxation does come out of production. [HON. MEMBERS: "'Vide,' Vide."] I am going on. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stop reading."] I am going to read a quotation.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put the question. Debate resumed
    Mr. HUNT: As a proof that our taxation comes out of production, the Prime Minister, to whom I was about to refer, said that:—
    "he fully recognised that the taxation of the country in which commodities are produced was an important element in the cost of production."
    We know it also from eminent Free Trade authorities, because they have admitted that on competing imported goods the foreigner pays part of the duty. Does anybody dispute that? HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well; as nobody disputes it I will not read the admissions of free traders. The consequence of our present system of taxation is that our own producers have to pay about £13 to £15 in local and Imperial taxation on everything that they produce in this country. [Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Members are laughing at.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have been listening to the hon. Member, and his speech seems to be one for a Wednesday evening rather than for Committee of Ways and Means. He seems to me to be travelling a little wide of the subject.
    Mr. HUNT: I am very sorry. I did not intend at all to get out of order. But the way to raise taxation does come in the Budget. Surely hon. Members will admit that we have to pay rates and taxes, and that they come out of production. The manufacturer or the farmer pays them out of profits, the working man out of wages earned by production. If the United Kingdom was dipped under the sea there would be no free market costing £300,000,000 a year for the foreigner to use; We really, under our present system of taxation, are penalising our people to the extent of £13 to £15 out of every £100 on everything we; produce. Why? Because we tax our own people and allow foreigners to send in all sorts of competing goods into our markets, and do not make them pay anything. That is neither a Free Trade system of taxation, nor is it a fair trade system of taxation! It is really protecting the foreigner against our own people. It is a most extraordinary thing that hon. Members opposite, who think they know so much about taxation, cannot manage to find that out. What is the result of it?
    872
    The Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?" and an HON. MEMBER: "He is out with Bonar Law."] He could not be in better company!
    The Prime Minister asked the House to remember:—
    "that the home market was five or six times more valuable to our working people than all the markets of the rest of the world."
    Yet what do we do? We give to outsiders free access to this market. We give them very unfair advantages at the expense of our own workpeople. We say to the rest of the world: "Come along! Use our extensive home markets as much as you like for your surplus and bounty-fed goods, and we will extra-tax our people in order that you may have nothing to pay: we will do this whether the imported goods are luxuries made by high-paid Americans or whether they are pigs produced in China where men work for a few pence per day. Moreover, we promise you this: we won't make any effective protest however much you may charge us before we are allowed to use your market, because we feel sure in our infinite wisdom, that your system of taxing our competing, goods will do you a great deal more harm than it will do us." Hon. Members on the opposite side talk of Free Trade legislation that favours the workpeople. The Prime Minister said that with the exception of bread that it could hardly be said that there is one of the necessaries or simple luxuries of life which did not pay its share towards the national revenue. He forgot that all the bread we eat in this country, from the wheat grown here, is taxed. That is because of our system. We tax so heavily the necessities and simple luxuries of the poor, and we let off altogether, with the exception of alcohol and tobacco, the luxuries of the rich. Hon. Members who are here in the interest of labour back up that system. Look at the result.
    Take taxation on tea. You tax the tea of the poor woman from £75 to £100 on every £100 worth, whilst on the imported £100 dress of the rich woman there is no taxation at all, and the poorer she is and the cheaper the tea, the more you tax her. That is the result of your present system of taxation, and hon. Members seem to like it. I hope they will go to their Constituents and say so. Take tobacco. On £1,000 worth of working man's tobacco the tax is about £6,000. That is your system of Free Trade taxation. On £1,000 motor car, devil a halfpenny of

    873
    import taxation is charged. That is your system, and the result surely has been very bad for the working people. It is a system in favour of the monied and against the working people of this country. The people who backup the present system of taxation are the rich people having great interests abroad. There are also the big general merchants who buy abroad cheaply the surplus goods of the white nations or the goods made by the cheap labour of the East. They buy abroad and sell these goods in our country and make more money by that system than if they employed our people at home. If the working people properly understood this system there would not be many hon. Members opposite returned to this House. You know the result of sixty years of this system means unparalleled misery in our big towns and centres of industry. I gave one remarkable quotation. I could give plenty of others. You know it is true and you know or you ought to know that the system of taxation now advocated by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has the effect of preventing our own people from getting a fair chance of regular employment and good wages in their own country. That surely is their birthright and the present system of taxation deprives them of that birthright, and until you alter that system by State intervention for British workers against some of the rich and very rich, in other words, by a tariff imposed for agriculture as well as manufactures our workers cannot have real prosperity in their own country.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Wait till Bonar Law catches you!
    Mr. HUNT: Let me remind hon. Members who are so pleased because I advocate a tariff on agricultural produce that we ought in this country to employ nearly half of our people in agriculture as they do in other countries. If agriculture had fair play we could do so and we could grow an enormous amount of food for ourselves which is now grown in other countries. Hon. Members shout when I say that there must be a fair tariff on competing agricultural produce from abroad. Let me remind you that the taxation on the agricultural produce that we grow in this country is very heavy, and it is getting heavier every year. We are growing less than we used to. We keep on growing less and food keeps on getting dearer, because there is less competition with our home supply. If you Liberals really want to
    874
    bring prosperity to our people, and more especially to our working people, you must give our own people in their own country fair play, and you must by preferential tariffs link up the Empire for commerce and defence.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Attorney-General casts some doubt upon the correctness of the quotation which my right hon. Friend handed to him. I have therefore looked it up in Hansard, and I propose to read exactly what occurred from the pages of Hansard. It is on page 299 of 30th April, 1906:—
    "In regard to the Income tax, I do not hesitate to associate myself with the declarations of more than one of my predecessors that an Income-tax of a uniform rate of 1s. in the £ at time of peace is impossible to justify. It is a burden on the trade of tile country, which in the long run affects not only profits hut wages, ft presses with excessive and peculiar severity on that large class of the community with incomes between £700 and £2,000 who pay in addition their full share of the taxation on articles of consumption, and, from the point of view of the nation, is open to the same objection as the continuance at an abnormal figure of the floating debt, namely, that it tends to destroy or at any rate to contract a most readily available resource on which the State can draw in a sudden and unforseen emergency."
    Next came the reasons why he did not reduce the Income Tax:—
    "A reduction of the Income-tax by 1d. means in these days the sacrifice of £2,600,000, which is more than this year I can afford. Although I am not able to give any immediate relief to the Income-tax payer, I propose to take a step which will at any rate clear the ground for future operations."
    Then he goes on to say that he proposes to set up a Commission to consider the matter.
    Mr. CROFT: The extract which has just been read, when quoted by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walter Long), did not altogether give satisfaction to the Attorney-General. I should like to be allowed to support the view with a quotation from another critic of the Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer. The critic made use of the following words:—
    "A shilling Income-tax in times of peace! Why it was a War-tax in times of peace."
    That was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I may read a little further in the same speech, because it is one of predominant value to this country at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
    "Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that this sort of thing was not continued. They have gone on year after year piling up expenditure and nobody seemed to think that it was his duty to stop it, to use his influence, to risk his personal position in order to stop it. They had had three or four Chancellors of the Exchequer each of whom had expressed pions opinions about expenditure, but they did nothing. They had constant professions calling attention to the danger, and yet the

    875
    peril was increasing, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted anything. He did not know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to reduce the expenditure this year. He himself must realise that they were reaching a point it was difficult for the public to tolerate. They were spending money which was their reserve and which would be useful in case of war."
    These are words which the House would do well to think over before the Second Reading of the Bill, when I shall hope to have an opportunity of expressing my views more fully on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged us for not bringing forward our alternative Budget.
    But he spoke for three hours on the first day and ninety minutes to-day so that we have not been allowed much opportunity. On general grounds I agree with the courageous speech of my hon. Friend. He was not treated in the best manner by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, when they read that speech to-morrow morning, they will find a great deal in it worthy of consideration.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 188.

    Division No. 94.]

    AYES.

    [12.6 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Dillon, John

    King, Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Doris, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lardner, James C. R.

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Edwards, Clement, Glamorgan, E.)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockermith)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Leach, Charles

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Arnold, Sydney

    Esmonde. Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lundon, Thomas

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Falconer, James

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Barton, William

    Field, William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Black, Arthur W

    Glanville, Harold James

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Boland, John Pius

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

    Brocklehurst, William B.

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

    Middlebrook, William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hackett, John

    Molloy, Michael

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Mooney, John J.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morison, Hector

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morrell, Philip

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Muldoon, John

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Clough, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Holt, Richard Burning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Conner, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Dowd, John

    Cullinan, John

    Johnson, W.

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

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

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Davies, Timothy (Lines. Louth)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

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

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Shee, James John

    De Forest, Baron

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Delany, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Rowlands, James

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Webb, H.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Sheehy, David

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Shortt, Edward

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

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Radford, George Heynes

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Reddy, Michael

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sutherland John E.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Young, Wiliam (Perth, East)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Robinson, Sidney

    Verney, Sir Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Gulland and Mr. William Jones.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Du Cres, Arthur Philip

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Eyres, Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Astor, Waldort

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Barnston, Harry

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mackinder Halford J.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Macmaster, Donald

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Grant, James Augustus

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

    Gretton, John

    Meysey-Thompson E.

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Blair, Reginald

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

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mount, William Arthur

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Boyton, James

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Nicholson, William (Petersfield)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Butcher, John George

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

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan (Ayr, N.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Cator, John

    Hills, John Waller

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Cave, George

    Hohler Gerald Fitzroy

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Royds, Edmund

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sandys, G. J.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Keswick, Henry

    Stanier, Beville

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    878

    879

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

    Stewart, Gershoin

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Swift, Rigby

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

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

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Tullibardine, Marquess, of

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Croft and Mr. Rupert Gwynne.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    SUPER-TAX.
    2. Resolved, That—
    (a) the additional duty of Income Tax (called Super-tax) shall be charged, in respect of incomes which exceed £3,000, as follows:—

    s.

    d.

    in respect of the first £2,500 of the income

    nil

    in respect of the excess over £2,500—

    for every pound of the first £500 of the excess

    0

    5

    for every pound of the next £1,000 of the excess

    0

    7

    for every pound of the next £1,000 of the excess

    0

    9

    for every pound of the next £1,000 of the excess

    0

    11

    for every pound of the next £1,000 of the excess

    1

    1

    for every pound of the next £1,000 of the excess

    1

    3

    for the remainder of the excess

    1

    4

    and
    (b) the like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Super-tax as so charged as had effect with respect to the Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen; and
    (c) it is declared that it is expedient in the public interests that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.—[Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

    EARNED INCOME.
    3. Motion made, and Question put, That—

    (a) the relief given in respect of earned income shall be modified so as to allow relief only as follows:—

    Relief by way of reduction of the tax to nine pence in cases where the total income does not exceed one thousand pounds;

    Relief by way of reduction of the tax to ten pence half-penny in cases where the total income exceeds one thousand pounds and docs not exceed one thousand five hundred pounds;

    Relief by way of reduction of the tax to one shilling in cases where the total income exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds and does nor exceed two thousand pounds;

    Relief by way of reduction of the tax to one shilling and two pence in cases where the total income exceeds two thousand pounds but does not exceed two thousand five hundred pounds; and

    (b) 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.—[Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 188.

    Division No. 95.]

    AYES.

    [12.19 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Boland, John Plus

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Barnes, George N.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barton, William

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brunner, John F. L

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Arnold, Sydney

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pratt, J. W.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Johnson, William

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Clough, William

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Reddy, Michael

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Redmond, John E. (Watertord)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    King, Joseph

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Crooks, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cullinan, John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

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

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    De Forest, Baron

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rowlands, James

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Dillon, John

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Doris, William

    MacVeagh Jeremiah

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

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sheehy, David

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Shortt, Edward

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Martin, Joseph

    Snowden, Philip

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Falconer, James

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southward, West)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Middlebrook, William

    Sutherland, John E.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas James Henry

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Morison, Hector

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Morrell, Philip

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Muldoon, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Glanville, Harold James

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Goldstone, Frank

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wardle, George J.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Hackett, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Webb, H.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Doneil, Thomas

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Dowd, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Malley, William

    Wiles, Thomas

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    William, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shee, James John

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

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

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Gulland and Mr. William Jones.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    882

    883

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gibb George Abraham

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

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gretton, John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

    Hardy Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

    Royds, Edmund

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hills, John Waller

    Sandys, G. J.

    Boyton, James

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cator, John

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cave, George

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Keswick, Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clay, Captain H H. Spender

    Larmer, Sir J.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lee, Arthur H.

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Croft, H. P.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Dayziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Winterton, Earl

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell Bolton M.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Faber, George D (Clapham)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mount, William Arthur

    Grant and Mr. Douglas Hall.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    INCOME FROM FOREIGN PROPERTY.
    4. Resolved, That Income Tax, including Super-tax, shall be charged on the income arising from securities or possessions in any place out of the United Kingdom, whether that income is received in the United Kingdom or not;
    And 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
    884
    Taxes Act, 1913.—[Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

    DEATH DUTIES.
    5. Motion made, and Question put, That, in the case of persons dying after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, there shall be substituted for the rates of the Estate Duty set out in the Second Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the following rates:—

    885

    Where the principal Value of the Estate

    Estate Duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of

    £

    £

    Exceeds

    100

    and does not exceed

    500

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Exceeds

    500;

    and does not exceed

    1,000

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Exceeds

    1,000

    and does not exceed

    5,000

    …

    …

    …

    3

    Exceeds

    5,000

    and does not exceed

    10,000

    …

    …

    …

    4

    Exceeds

    10,000

    and does not exceed

    20,000

    …

    …

    …

    5

    Exceeds

    20,000

    and does not exceed

    40,000

    …

    …

    …

    6

    Exceeds

    40,000

    and does not exceed

    60,000

    …

    …

    …

    7

    Exceeds

    60,000

    and does not exceed

    80,000

    …

    …

    …

    8

    Exceeds

    80,000

    and does not exceed

    100,000

    …

    …

    …

    9

    Exceeds

    100,000

    and does not exceed

    150,000

    …

    …

    …

    10

    Exceeds

    150,000

    and does not exceed

    200,000

    …

    …

    …

    11

    Exceeds

    200,000

    and does not exceed

    250,000

    …

    …

    …

    12

    Exceeds

    250,000

    and does not exceed

    300,000

    …

    …

    …

    13

    Exceeds

    300,000

    and does not exceed

    350,000

    …

    …

    …

    14

    Exceeds

    350,000

    and does not exceed

    400,000

    …

    …

    …

    15

    Exceeds

    400,000

    and does not exceed

    500,000

    …

    …

    …

    16

    Exceeds

    500,000

    and does not exceed

    600,000

    …

    …

    …

    17

    Exceeds

    600,000

    and does not exceed

    800,000

    …

    …

    …

    18

    Exceeds

    800,000

    and does not exceed

    1,000,000

    …

    …

    …

    19

    Exceeds

    1,000,000

    and does not exceed

    …

    …

    …

    20

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 186.

    Division No. 96.]

    AYES.

    [12.30 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Crooks, William

    Hackett, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cullinan, John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Barnes, George N.

    De Forest, Baron

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Delany, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hayward, Evan

    Barton, William

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Dillon, John

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Doris, William

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

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Duffy, William J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Black, Arthur W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Boland, John Plus

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hudson, Walter

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    John, Edward Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Johnson, W.

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Falconer, James

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Field, William

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Kelly, Edward

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clough, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    King, Joseph

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Glanville, Harold James

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

    886

    887

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Malley, William

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockermth)

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

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Leach, Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Shee, James John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thomas, James Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pointer, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pratt, J. W.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Martin, Joseph

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wardie, George J

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Middlebrook, William

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Reddy, Michael

    Webb, H.

    Molloy, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morison, Hector

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Muldoon, John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Rowlands, James

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Mr.

    O'Dowd, John

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Gulland and Mr. W. Jones.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fell, Arthur

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Cassel, Felix

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cator, John

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Archer-Shee, Major, Martin

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cave, George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Grant, J. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gretton, John

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

    Bariow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Bird, Alfred

    Croft, Henry Page

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Blair, Reginald

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Boyton, James

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hills, John Waller

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    888

    889

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stewart, Gershom

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Swift, Rigby

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Newman, John R. P.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Hunt, Rowland

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Keswick, Henry

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

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

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

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Winterton, Earl

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Mackinder, Halford J

    Sandys, G. J.

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

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Stanier, Beville

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    White and Sir M. Wilson.

    SETTLEMENT ESTATE DUTY.
    6. Motion made and Question put, "That, in the case of persons dying after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the relief from the payment of Death Duties given in respect of settled property when Estate Duty has already been paid in respect of the property since the date of the settlement, and the similar relief given under Section 21 of the
    Finance Act, 1894, where the duties mentioned in that Sub-section have been paid or are payable and under Sub-section (16) of Section 23 of the same Act in the case of entailed estates in Scotland shall cease; and settlement Estate Duty shall no longer be charged."—[Chancellor of the Exchequer.,]
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 184.

    Division No. 97.]

    AYES.

    [12.43 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Clough, William

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Arnold, Sydney

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Falconer, James

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Barnes, George N.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Field, William

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Barton, William

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Crooks, William

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cullinan, John

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Bethell, Sir j. H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Goldstone, Frank

    Boland, John Plus

    De Forest, Baron

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Delany, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

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

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Dillon, John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hackett, John

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Doris, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Duffy, William J.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Muldoon, John

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murphy, Martin, J.

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

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Sheehy, David

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Shortt, Edward

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Johnson, W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Malley, William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Shee, James John

    Thomas, James Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Kelly, Edward

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Parry, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    King, Joseph

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Leach, Charles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Webb, H.

    Lewis, Rt Hon. John Herbert

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Radford, George Heynes

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilkie, Alexander

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    M'Curdy, Charles A.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Martin, Joseph

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Mason, David M (Coventry)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Middlebrook, William

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Mr.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gulland and Mr. W. Jones.

    Molloy, Michael

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boyton, James

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Croft, H. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Butcher, John George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Astor, Waldorf

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Carilie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Dixon, C. H

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cator, John

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Cave, George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Barnston, Harry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchln)

    Fell, Arthur

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Bird, Alfred

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Blair, Reginald

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Goldman, C. S.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Craig, Norman, Kent, Thanet)

    Grant, James Augustus

    892

    893

    Gretton, John

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Sandys, G. J.

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

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

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Stanier, Beville

    Hall, D B. (Isle of Wight)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Macmaster, Donald

    Stewart, Gershom

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Malcolm, Ian

    Swift, Rigby

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hills, John Waller

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

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

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Winterton, Earl

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Keswick, Henry

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Royds, Edmund

    Yale, Colonel C. E.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Mills and Mr. Hamilton Benn.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    7. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise.—[Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
    Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday next (13th May); Committee to sit upon Wednesday.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [7th May] as relates to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords (as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 7th day of May) to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Mr. Cave, Mr. Nield, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Radford, and Mr. Charles Roberts nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three minutes before One a.m. Tuesday, 12th May.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  CONTRIBUTIONS PAID IN ERROR.
  CONTRIBUTIONS PAID IN ERROR.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  Civil Service.
  Civil Service.
BUDGET PROPOSALS.
  SUPER-TAX.
  SUPER-TAX.
  LAND DUTIES.
  LAND DUTIES.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
BRITISH ARMY.
  GENEVA CROSS.
  GENEVA CROSS.
  Burston (Norfolk) Council School.
  Burston (Norfolk) Council School.
  Charity Schools (Standard of Education).
  Charity Schools (Standard of Education).
  Northern Nigeria (Rex v. Nichols).
  Northern Nigeria (Rex v. Nichols).
  British Guiana.
  British Guiana.
INDIA.
  RE-VACCINATION (BOMBAY).
  RE-VACCINATION (BOMBAY).
  ARMY AEROPLANES.
  ARMY AEROPLANES.
  Ferries (Tolls).
  Ferries (Tolls).
  Police Forces.
  Police Forces.
  Tuberculosis (Bristol).
  Tuberculosis (Bristol).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  BIRMINGHAM OFFICE.
  BIRMINGHAM OFFICE.
  HOLT COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  HOLT COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  K COMPANY SERVICE.
  K COMPANY SERVICE.
  Trade Unions.
  Trade Unions.
  Cost of Living (Working Classes).
  Cost of Living (Working Classes).
  Home-Grown Wheat (Prices).
  Home-Grown Wheat (Prices).
  Trade Commissioners (Dominions).
  Trade Commissioners (Dominions).
  Pedigree Cattle (Tuberculin Test).
  Pedigree Cattle (Tuberculin Test).
  Tobacco Cultivation (Great Britain).
  Tobacco Cultivation (Great Britain).
  Demand for Labour.
  Demand for Labour.
  Poor Law Guardians (Relief on Loan).
  Poor Law Guardians (Relief on Loan).