Sitting of 20 May 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Port of London Authority Bill,
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
Birmingham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
As amended, to be considered upon Friday.
Middlesex County Council (Western Road and Improvements and Finance) Bill,
Stone Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Walsall Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill,
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 9) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1909, in respect of certain burghs and parishes in the county of Ayr." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON;
1918
read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
Sea Fisheries (Yealm) Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to Oyster and Mussel Fisheries in the estuary of the River Yealm, in the county of Devon." Presented by Mr. RUNCIMAN; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5278 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1909.
Copy presented of Special Reports by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
Copy presented of Second Report by the Scottish Land Court for the year 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
OFFICE OF WORKS (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Architects' and Surveyors' and Engineering Divisions of His Majesty's Office of Works, London [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  South African War (Claims of German Subjects).
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in regard to the claims of German subjects whose property was destroyed or damaged during the South African war; and if he can give the amount of such claims?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The matter is receiving careful consideration, but His Majesty's Government must communicate with the Government of the Union of South Africa before any announcement can be made on the subject. The amount claimed is about £121,000.

  Panama-Pacific Exhibition.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any understanding exists with Germany to the effect that Germany is bound under moral, though not treaty, obligations to England which prevents her from being officially represented at the Panama-Pacific Exposition to be held at San Francisco next year?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative; there is no such obligation, moral or otherwise.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Herr Basserman, the National Labour Leader in the Reichstag, made a distinct statement in the Reichstag that the Committee was informed that Germany was bound under moral, if not treaty obligations, with England which prevented her from being officially represented at the exhibition, and the Government informed the Committee that the initiative for this— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech, Speech!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not responsible for what is said in foreign Chambers, nor can he be expected to be aware of it, except through the same sources as the hon. Member.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department have for some months referred inquiries regarding the Panama-Pacific Exposition, to be held at San Francisco next year, to the British Committee?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Burns): Since December last eleven firms have asked the Board of Trade for particulars of the San Francisco Exhibition. In replying to these inquiries the Board have in each case given the name and address of the British Committee.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if the British Committee of the Panama-Pacific Exposition has offered to place at his dis-
  1920
  posal full particulars regarding the many British firms who are desirous of exhibiting at the Exposition to be held at San Francisco next year?
  Mr. BURNS: The Secretary of the British Committee of the Panama-Pacific Exhibition informed me on the 5th May that he had had considerable correspondence in regard to the exhibition, and that he would be pleased to give, the Department any information or assistance at his disposal.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman avail himself of the information?
  Mr. BURNS: We are glad to consider all suggestions and information at the Board of Trade.

  New Hebrides.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say if His Majesty's Government have come to an arrangement with the French Government for holding a Conference on the matters in dispute with regard to the New Hebrides?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir, a Conference has been agreed to, and it will meet shortly in London.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to stating the terms of reference?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think there will be any precise terms of reference, but the Government have agreed to discuss matters which have arisen.

  Sierra Leone Nursing Home.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Manchester Chamber of Commerce has appealed to the Governor of Sierra Leone requesting that Europeans entering the nursing home may continue to enjoy the services of their own medical attendant, whether native or European; and can he say what reply has been sent to this request?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I do not know what reply has finally been returned by the Governor of Sierra Leone to the letter from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to which my hon. Friend refers; but I have decided that the native

  1921
  medical practitioner to whose case the Chamber of Commerce specially referred shall continue to be allowed the same facilities for attending his patients in the nursing home that he has hitherto enjoyed, subject to the privilege being liable to be withdrawn at any time for good cause shown.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that there is no statutory provision for deposit contributors after the 31st December next, and that an undertaking was given that the House would have an opportunity of making more satisfactory arrangements for this class, comprising, with their dependants, a million people, the Government will introduce the necessary Bill before the Adjournment for Whitsuntide?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I fear I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 12th instant to the hon. Member for Salisbury.

    MEDICAL AND SURGICAL APPLIANCES.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if there are any industries or avocations in which there is particular danger of particular kinds of accidents happening, or diseases being contracted, for which the national health insurance committees are allowed to supply any particular kinds of medical instruments or necessities?
    Mr. GEOFFREY HOWARD (Lord of the Treasury): The medical and surgical appliances which insurance committees are empowered to supply as part of medical benefit are those specified in the Second Schedule to the Regulations. These are available in suitable cases for the treatment of diseases or accidents, whether arising as a result of the insured person's employment or otherwise.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Will the hon. Gentleman say why these necessities are not applied to the miners of South Wales?
    Mr. GEOFFREY HOWARD: If the Noble Lord will refer to the Schedule he will find the answer.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the urgent nature of the question, he is now able to make any announcement as to the provision of a further sum towards meeting the administration expenses of the smaller county and burgh insurance committees?
    Major HOPEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that the necessary expenditure of the majority of Scottish insurance committees has during the past year largely exceeded the sum allowed to meet their administration expenses; and if he will state what action he proposes to take in order to enable these committees to continue to carry out the duties imposed upon them under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. GEOFFREY HOWARD: I am afraid that I am not at present in a position to add anything to my hon. Friend's replies on this subject.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    ESTATE DUTY.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the total sum payable as Estate Duty on a sum of, say, £50,000 left by a testator to his widow for life and then to his children; and on what occasion will the duty be payable and at what rate per cent?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total sum payable as Estate Duty on a sum of £50,000 left by a testator to his widow for life and then to his children absolutely will be £3,500. The duty will be payable on the testator's death, and the rate will be 7 per cent. In addition Legacy Duty at 1 per cent. will be payable.
    Captain CLIVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the deduction allowed under the Budget from Estate Duty for Settlement Estate Duty already paid is to include compound interest; and, if so, at what rate?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and accordingly the second part does not arise.

    SUPER-TAX (IRELAND).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount

    1923
    contributed in Ireland in respect of Super-tax in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the number of persons who paid Super-tax in Ireland for the same year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very roughly, the Super-tax contributed by Ireland in the year 1912–13 is estimated at £120,000. Over 300 Super-tax payers are believed to have derived some of their income from Ireland.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (RELIEF OF RATES).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how the sum of £1,325,000, hitherto applied under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, in relief of rates upon agricultural land, will be applied in future; and whether, seeing that this amount is based upon a total rate burden upon such land of £2,700,000, of which it represents one-half, and that such burden has now increased to £4,400,000, the amount available under the Budget proposals for the relief of the rate burden upon agricultural land will in future be equivalent to at last one-half of the present total rate burden; (2) if he is aware that the Reports of the Royal Commissions on Agricultural Depression in 1896 and on Local Taxation in 1901, and the evidence upon which they were founded, showed a consensus of opinion in favour of increasing the rate relief in respect of agricultural land from one-half to three-quarters of the lull rate burden; whether, in view of the handicap which the increasing rate burden has occasioned to agricultural industry and enterprise by contrast with the far more profitable town industries, he will take the opportunity presented by the proposed alteration of the present system and basis of Government subsidies to increase the proportion of relief hitherto afforded to such land; (3) if he will state what proportion of the amount required out of rates for the cost of services administered by local authorities will, under the Budget proposals, be levied upon the basis of site value and what proportion upon the basis of assessable value; and (4) whether it is proposed, under the new scheme of local taxation foreshadowed in the Budget, to base local taxation in agricultural administrative areas partly upon the so-called site value of agricultural land; and, if so, seeing that in England and Wales the whole of such value is the result of human
    1924
    labour and expenditure, what species of agricultural improvements will be deemed to form part of the site for the above purpose?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): These are matters which cannot be adequately dealt with in a reply to Parliamentary questions. I would suggest to the hon. Member that they are more suited for discussion in the Debates on the Finance and Revenue Bills and on the Rating Bill of next Session.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until some more definite details are given with regard to the position of agriculturists under the Government's financial proposals, the agricultural community remain in a state of considerable doubt as to how they should regard the proposals of the Government?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the hon. Member and those whom he represents will find very largely increased information in the Finance Bill when circulated, as it will be shortly.
    Mr. HEWINS: May I ask the light hon. Gentleman whether the Government has settled the basis upon which the necessary classifications are to be made.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Oh, yes.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue at an early date a White Paper embodying his proposals, foreshadawed in his Budget speech, dealing with the case of deposit contributors, the appointment of medical referees, and the provision of health lectures under the National Health Insurance Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So far as legislation may be necessary to give effect to the proposals referred to, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the terms of the Bill, but so far as legislation may not be necessary, I will consider his suggestion.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NAVAL MANŒUVRES (RESULTS).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether information in the form of a. Command Paper or a statement in Parliament will be given concerning the results of the naval manœuvres of 1912 and

    1925
    1913; and whether the results of the manœuvres or trial mobilisations will in the future be published?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the latter part, each case will be considered on its merits; but my right hon. Friend does not anticipate that the publication of results would usually be in the public interest.

    OIL FUEL (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Report of the Royal Commission on Oil Fuel may be expected; if the Commission is still sitting; and whether he will state to the House the cost to the State of this Commission?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Commission is no longer sitting, and the final Report has been received. The Admiralty have no record of the cost, and it is suggested that the question be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury.

    MALAY STATES "DREADNOUGHT."
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Federated Malay States have been forced to raise a large loan in London to pay for the "Dreadnought" given to this country on the suggestion of the chief secretary of the Malay States; and, if so, whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: As I informed the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on the 13th instant, the loan which the Federated Malay States propose to raise is to be applied to the construction of railways and other public works and for the purchase of lands and materials in connection therewith.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it a fact that the Government have got a "Dreadnought" from the Malay States, and that they are obliged to borrow the money?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, I do not agree to any of the assumptions of the hon. Member.

    PANAMA CANAL (OPENING).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can inform the House as to the approximate cost of
    1926
    sending the British Fleet to the opening of the Panama Canal?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The ships have not yet been selected, and consequently no data are available. In any case it would be somewhat unusual to state the cost involved in a visit of courtesy.

    PETTY OFFICERS (PLAIN CLOTHES).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a little while ago permission was granted to the chief petty officers attached to His Majesty's ship "Cormorant," at Gibraltar, to wear plain clothes while on night leave ashore with their families; that this permission has since been withdrawn and the men required to wear uniform on the occasions named; and whether, in view of the unpopularity of the change, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the former arrangement, under which plain clothes were allowed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend will inquire what are the reasons for the change.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGE CLAUSE).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for War the reason why Messrs. Cockerell, building contractors, of Portsmouth, and other builders and contractors who are performing work under his Department in the Aldershot district, do not post the Fair-Wage Clause of their contracts upon their works?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): No complaint has been received, and I have no information on the point, but inquiry is being made.

  INDIA.

    TEXTILE MILLS (CHILDREN WORKERS).
    Mr. GILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state the age at which children are allowed to commence work in the textile mills in India and the period of daily employment; whether they have to obtain certificates of fitness from a certifying surgeon before commencing work; what check there is upon them to prevent the Factory Act being evaded; whether such children have to attend public elemenary schools for the portion of the day when not at work; and

    1927
    whether any definite standard of education has to be reached before full-time employment is allowed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE For INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): No child may be employed in a textile factory in British India for more than six hours in one day. He must not be under nine years of age, and must have obtained a certificate of age and fitness from a certifying surgeon. When at work he must have in his possession either this certificate or a token giving reference to it. The factories are regularly visited by an inspector, who is responsible for the proper administration of the Act in this and other respects. The reply to the hon. Member's last two questions is in the negative.

  Movement of Irish Cattle.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture under what Acts of Parliament (specifying the respective sections) the Board of Agriculture and various local authorities in England and Scotland, respectively, have issued orders restricting or prohibiting the movement of Irish cattle into England or Scotland, or into the respective local areas?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Orders of the Board are issued in pursuance of the powers conferred upon them by Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and the Regulations of the local authorities are made under Clause 12 of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1895.
  Earl WINTERTON: Can the Government give us an assurance that there will be no interference with the rights of local authorities in this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that arises out of the question.

  Office of Works (Holmes Committee Report).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state when it is proposed to publish the Report of the Holmes Committee which inquired into the organisation of the Office of Works?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The Report will be presented to the House to-day.

  Education (Treasury Estimate).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what is the total amount estimated to be paid by the Treasury for primary, secondary, technical, and university education to each of the three countries, England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, during the year 1914–15?
  Mr. MONTAGU: So far as the figures which the hon. Member requires are not to be found in Class IV. of the Civil Service Estimates, I would refer him to my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Education, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

  King's Regulations (New Edition).
  Major HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the War Office sent to the Stationery Office a copy of the King's Regulations, 1912, with subsequent amendments pasted into correct pages, how long it would take the Stationery Office to produce a new edition of the King's Regulations?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Stationery Office could produce a new edition of the King's Regulations in about three and a half months, exclusive of the time required by the War Office to correct proofs, etc.
  Major HOPE: Would it be possible to produce it before the examinations for promotion?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I believe the hon. Member got a reply to that question from the War Office yesterday.
  Major HOPE: Was not the reply that it could not be produced before next year?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I was prepared to answer that question yesterday, but the hon. Member withdrew it. The answer is that we could produce it before next year. We can produce it in the autumn or winter of this year.
  Colonel GREIG: Is it not a fact that every officer can obtain copies of the alterations?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, he can.
  Major HOPE: Yes, if he has the time to do it, and if non-commissioned officers have the opportunity of doing it.
  Mr. TENNANT: This is the answer I was prepared to give to the hon. Member: The first steps in getting a new edition through the Press have been taken, and

  1929
  that over 60,000 copies would be required, but in spite of this I hope to be able to secure the issue earlier than the date I gave in answer to a previous question. I hope that may be in the autumn or early winter of this year.
  Major HOPE: Was my question the first means of calling attention to these hardships inflicted upon officers?
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot admit that for a moment.

  Civil Service (Intermediate Clerkships).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many of the successful candidates at the competitions for intermediate clerkships held since the institution of the scheme in 1908 have had previous service as second division clerks, the total number of intermediate clerks now serving, and how many of the total number have had previous service as second division clerks?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is 119, including three officers who had served in posts outside the second division, but filled from the same competition. I regret that there are no figures available to enable me to answer the other two parts of the question.

  Public Trustee.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give an undertaking that the office of the Public Trustee will not be transferred to the Civil Service without due notice to Parliament?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot give the undertaking, but the House can take an opportunity for discussing this matter in Committee of Supply.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can promise that, in the event of the office of the Public Trustee being transferred to the Civil Service, those now employed by the Public Trustee will be recognised as having served in the public service since the foundation of the office by the Public Trustee Act, 1906; and whether, in computing the Civil Service pensions, regard will be had to the fact that the present remuneration of such persons is far below the Civil Service standard, and is not commensurate with the magnitude of their work or with its responsibilities?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot see my way to giving any undertaking on this subject,
  1930
  nor can I accept the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question. In the event of persons now in the employment of the Public Trustee being admitted to the permanent Civil Service, their claim to pension will be governed by the provisions of the Superannuation Acts and the established practice of the Treasury under those Acts.

  Preventive Officers (Victoria and Charing Cross Stations).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state what decision the Board of Inland Revenue has arrived at in reference to the petition of the baggage men and preventive officers at Victoria and Charing Cross stations?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Board of Customs and Excise have replied to the petition and have assigned daily allowances of 1s. 3d. a day to officers and 1s. a day to men to cover all the special conditions attaching to their employment at the places in question.

  Miners' Diseases.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Milroy lectures, delivered by Dr. Shufflebotham before the Royal College of Physicians, dealing with miners' diseases; and whether the Home Office contemplate adding miners' itch to those industrial diseases which are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have seen a report of these lectures, but have otherwise no information in regard to this ailment. It is not mentioned in the Report of the Committee on Compensation for Industrial Diseases, and no representations have been made to me on the subject. If, as I gather from the report of the lectures, the ailment cannot be regarded as specific to the employment in the sense indicated by the Committee in their Report, I could not add it to the Schedule in the Workmen's Compensation Act; but any cases of disablement caused by this ailment will be covered by the National Insurance Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this disease often lasts for three weeks?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is not relevant to, the remedy which my hon. Friend suggests.

  Cotton-weaving Sheds (Temperature).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether the temperature in cotton-weaving sheds in Lancashire is limited by law to 75 degrees Fahrenheit when measured by the wet-bulb thermometer; whether in the coal mines of France there is a limitation in temperature when measured both by the wet and dry-bulb thermometers at which miners shall work; whether the temperature of 77 degrees Fahrenheit, measured by the wet-bulb thermometer, is regarded as too high for continuous work in the mine; whether similar legislation exists in most foreign countries where mining is carred on; and whether he contemplates legislation which shall limit the temperature similarly in British mines?
  Mr. McKENNA: No absolute limit of temperature is fixed for cotton-weaving sheds; my hon. Friend is perhaps thinking of the Regulation which prohibits artificial humidification of the air when the wet-bulb reading exceeds 75 degrees. It is the case that the French Mining Regulations prohibit work, except in cases of absolute necessity, when the temperature reaches certain limits, but those limits are 95 degrees on the dry or 86 degrees on the wet bulb. There are similar regulations, I understand, in Austria and Belgium. As to fixing a limit for coal mines in this country, I can only say, as I said in reply to a question on 19th March, that the Royal Commission on Coal Mines considered this subject, and came to the conclusion that no limit should be fixed. The limits fixed by the French law are reached in very few mines in this country.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the seventy-seven degrees under the French law requires the deputies to inform the management of the temperature. It does not stop the working of the mine, but notification is involved, and is that not desirable for keeping down temperature in this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: Under the new Orders I have issued under the Coal Mines Regulations Act, the thermometers must be placed underground near the shaft.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am speaking of the coal face.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will consider that point.

  Safety Appliances (Museum).
  Mr. GILLasked the Home Secretary whether the erection of the museum for the exhibition of safety appliances has yet been commenced, and, if so, where it is situate; and whether he has decided to establish another in the industrial districts of the North?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the building for the museum is now in course of erection. The site is in Horseferry Road, Westminster. I have under consideration the question of arranging for local exhibitions of a similar character. It is proposed that use should be made of the more important local technical schools which are already provided with examples of the machinery used in the chief industries in their respective localities. If, as I hope, with the co-operation of the education authorities, arrangements can be made to exhibit in these schools approved types of safety and health appliances, the purposes of a local museum would be served and valuable results would also follow from the instruction of the students in regard to the provision and use of such appliances. A scheme is being worked out for Lancashire in the first instance.

  Accidents in Factories and Workshops.
  Mr. GILLasked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of trades in which conferences have been held between employers, operatives, and inspectors, as recommended by the Departmental Committee on Accidents; the number of conferences in each trade, separately; and the number of agreements arrived at?
  Mr. McKENNA: The trades in which conferences have taken place, and the number of meetings held in each, are as follows: Cotton-spinning, eleven; cotton-weaving, four; woollen and worsted spinning and weaving, six; iron foundries, two; tin-plates manufacture, two; bleaching and dyeing, five or six; herring-curing, three. Agreements have been arrived at in each trade, and official reports setting out the agreements in the case of the four trades first named have already been published.
  Mr. GILLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the increase in the number of non-fatal accidents in factories in 1913, amounting to

  1933
  over 21,000; whether he can give any reason for such increase; and what steps be proposes to take to make such industrial occupations safer?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the figures referred to which are taken from the Preliminary Tables of Accident issued by my Department. As explained in the introduction, the figures for 1912 and 1913 are not altogether comparable, as those for 1912 were affected by the long coal strike in that year, but in so far as the increase is a real one, it is to be accounted for chiefly by the effects of expanding trade. The matter will be fully dealt with in the Chief Inspector's Report for 1913, which will be issued shortly. The hon. Member will not expect me on this occasion to give in detail all the measures by which it is hoped to reduce the number of preventable accidents, but action is being taken in numerous directions, on the lines approved in the Report of the Accidents Committee, by arranging, for example, for increased and closer inspection; by holding conferences with employers and operatives; by the issue of further Regulations, such as the important code which has just come into force for shipbuilding; by the publication of Reports as to fencing and other precautions; and by the establishment of an industrial museum and the exhibition of types of safety appliances at various centres.

  Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if there is any precedent for a Secretary of State for War who has resigned office and is no longer a Member of the Government retaining his membership of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The composition of the Committee is not governed by any fixed rules or precedents. It consists of those persons who are from time to time summoned by the Prime Minister to its meetings.
  Earl WINTERTON: In view of the importance of this question, and the unsatisfactory answers I have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question either on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night or to-morrow night.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: In the statement made in reference to the composition of this Committee when it was first proposed, did not the right hon. Gentleman distinctly say that it was not necessary
  1934
  that it should be composed of members of the Cabint at all?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no!

  House of Lords.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister upon what date he will place upon the Order Paper his Resolutions relating to the constitution of another place?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet say.
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister if he will indicate his proposals for further schemes of devolution when he introduces his Resolutions relating to the constitution of another place?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IMPORTATION OF ARMS.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if any immediate steps are going to be taken to withdraw the Proclamation prohibiting the importation of arms into Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    AGREED SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the situation created by his promise to introduce an amending Bill in order to facilitate the passage of the Government of Ireland Bill through the House of Commons, with the object of securing the collaboration of all parties to an agreed settlement, he will consider the desirability of coming to an arrangement whereby party Whips should be taken off in any Divisions that may arise during the Debates on the amending Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion when the contingency to which he refers arises.
    Mr. PIRIE: Would it not be desirable in any such contingency as this for once to turn this House into a thinking machine instead of a voting machine?

    DRILLING (ULSTER).
    Mr. J. WARDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any official

    1935
    information showing that, on every occasion that the Ulster army drills, such drills are authorised by two resident magistrates in writing; if so, can he give the names of the magistrates who have given such written authority for illegal drilling; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am not aware of any occasion on which a meeting for the purpose of drilling has been authorised by two resident magistrates. I may, however, point out that the authority under the Act 60, George III., cap. 1, to which the hon. Member refers, can be given by any two justices of the peace who need not be resident magistrates. I must here add what I have already stated that, if the motive for the drilling is illegal, no value can be attached to the authority given by the magistrate.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the magistrates who have signed these permissions?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir; if the hon. Member wishes it.
    Colonel YATE: Will that inquiry apply to all the four provinces of Ireland or only to the one province of Ulster?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It depends upon whether the inquiry is limited to one of the provinces or extended to the four.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not limit it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have no desire to limit it.

  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to fix any date for the Second Reading of the Milk and Dairies Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

  Training and Registration of Midwives (Scotland)
  Mr. BARNESasked the Primo Minister if, in view of the passing through all its stages, by the House of Lords, of a
  1936
  Bill for the training and registration of midwives in Scotland, and in view of the need of such a Bill becoming law, he will favourably consider the question of giving facilities either for the Bill in question or for that standing in the name of the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are favourably disposed to the principles of the Bill, and will consider whether facilities can be given for its progress.

  Government of Scotland Bill.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Prime Minister, with reference to the pledge given at Edinburgh on the 8th November, 1913, and confirmed in this House on 24th February last by the Secretary for Scotland, that the Government would introduce a Bill embodying their views for the granting of self-government for Scotland, and to the support of and statement by the same Secretary in the Debate on the Government of Scotland Bill that there was nothing in that plan inconsistent with all the traditions of British statesmanship, whether, therefore, that Bill may now be taken as the Government view on this matter and as carrying out the pledge given by the Government; or, if not, when it is intended to fulfil that pledge?—May I say that I allude to the Bill as originally printed, and not the one containing the suffrage Clause subsequently added?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend informs me that he gave no pledge at Edinburgh as regards time. What he said in the Debate on Friday last was that the adaptation of the principle of Home Rule to the different circumstances of the different countries concerned was in no way inconsistent with all the conditions of British citizenship. He is not committed to approval of the details of the Bill. As regards the last part of the question, I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Did the Secretary for Scotland at any rate say that the Government were prepared to lend their aid in drafting a Scottish Home Rule Bill, and was the Government referred to the present Government or some other subsequent Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I presume the present Government, but I do not know what my right hon. Friend said.
  Mr. HOGGE: If my right hon. Friend assumes that it is the present Government, has the present Government any intention of doing so?
  The PRIME MINISTERmade a reply which was inaudible.
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in quoting the Secretary for Scotland, he has taken the report from the "Times" or from the OFFICIAL REPORT, or is the Secretary for Scotland going to alter in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech already delivered?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know why my hon. Friend puts that question.
  Mr. PIRIE: I will tell you.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is a summarised statement of what appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. PIRIE: I took my quotation from the speech as reported in the "Times," and I do not know whether one report is not just as good as the other.
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the pledge of the Government to introduce a Scottish Home Rule Bill, he can see his way to provide another day to conclude the Debate on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid the time at the disposal of the Government will not admit of a second day being given for the discussion of the Bill named.

  Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905, the Free Church of Scotland claimed to have 160 full sanctioned charges and had churches and manses allocated to them for that number and funds for the equipment of the same; whether, in 1914, the Free Church had sixty-eight fewer congregations than in 1907, two years after the Union; that in 1914 the Free Church had thirty-two fewer congregations than in 1913; that the number of stations are increasing; that this is due to the fact that stations contribute nothing to the widows and orphan fund, while congregations must pay £7 annually; that there are one professor and three ministers fewer in 1914 than in 1913, and still eighty-one vacancies to be filled; and that the decrease in con-
  1938
  gregations has averaged nearly ten each year; whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is now a proposal to abandon the assembly and hold a synod instead; and whether, in view of all these circumstances, he will cause some investigation to be made into the administration of the money allocated to the Free Church by Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend asked a question on this subject on 12th August last year. Since then communications have passed with the authorities of the Free Church, and I understand that they dispute the statement contained in that question. The present question differs from the previous question, except as regards the first paragraph, to which the authorities of the Free Church say the answer is in the negative. I cannot reply as regards an inquiry until I have made-further investigation with regard to the-fresh statements made by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statistics given in this question, as those given in the question last August, are taken from the official figures supplied by the officials of the Free Church of Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I dare say that they are. I do not know. I do not follow these things very closely.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Free Church was in enormous difficulty at the time of the Separation Act, and is he also aware that it is eminently fitted for its work in the Highlands of Scotland and has as great a proportion of students attending its colleges as there are students attending the colleges of other Churches?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is ground which I hesitate to tread.

  Local and Imperial Taxation (Scotland).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland, and endorsed by the corporation of Glasgow, expressing the opinion that the question of Imperial and local taxation in Scotland should be the subject of separate investigation and report, and protesting against the disbandment of the Departmental Committee on Local and Imperial Taxation without having heard the Scottish case; and whether it is the intention

  1939
  of the Government to secure a full investigation of the relations of local and Imperial taxation so far as they affect Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have received a copy of the letter which the standing joint committee of the Association of County Councils in Scotland and the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of Imperial and local taxation. As regards the rest of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th March and 21st April, and by the Secretary for Scotland on 14th May.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a very strong desire among the local bodies in Scotland that there should be an inquiry of this nature in Scotland as well as in England?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend desires that the claims of Scotland should be deferred until after the inquiry is completed.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Oh, no; certainly not.
  Mr. WATThad the following question on the Notice Paper: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed unanimously by the Convention of Royal Burghs to the effect that the question of Imperial and local taxation in Scotland should be the subject of separate investigation and report; that the Report by the Departmental Committee [Cd. 7315] in regard to England and Wales should not be regarded as entirely applicable to Scotland; and, if so, will he say whether it is the intention of the Government to disband the Departmental Committee without considering Scotland separately?
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask this question on behalf of my hon. Friend? The Secretary for Scotland is not here. He is absent, as usual; playing golf, I suppose?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to place Territorial battalions who go into camp at Whitsuntide on the same basis as
    1940
    regards obtaining recruits as those who go into camp in August, he will alter the Regulations so as to enable, in the case of the Whitsuntide campers, the twenty drills which must be performed before the annual training to be performed before the end of July, and by this means enable these battalions to recruit right up to camp, as the inducement to recruit is very-much stronger before camp than afterwards?
    Mr. TENNANT: This point was very carefully considered before the new-Regulations contained in Army Order 146 of this year and the Special Army Order were issued, and it was held that unless the recruit has performed his full number of drills before going to camp, the benefit he will derive from camp will be small. The Army Council do not see their way to make a further alteration in the Regulations.

    RECRUITING CAMPAIGN.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give particulars of the recent advertising campaign in favour of recruiting; the dates when it commenced and when it ceased; the total amount spent; and the number of men recruited directly and indirectly attributed to the advertisements?
    Mr. TENNANT: The first advertisement appeared on 15th January and the last was on 16th February. The amount spent was between £4,000 and £5,000. It is quite impossible to say how many of the recruits taken since the first advertisement appeared can be attributed directly or indirectly to the scheme. Up to date 2,400 recruits for the Regular Army and Special Reserve have been taken in excess of the numbers for the corresponding period of last year, and an increased intake continues.

  Licensing Act, 1904.
  Mr. YEOasked the Home Secretary the amount contributed to the compensation fund in the county of London by the licensees of on-licensed houses in each petty sessional division, and the amount paid in compensation to the licensees in each petty sessional division for each year since the Act of 1904 came into force?
  Mr. McKENNA: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. The compensation charges are collected and paid over to the compensation authority for the county of London

  1941
  as a whole. The number of licences extinguished with compensation and the total amount paid in each petty sessional division are shown yearly in Table II. (A) and (B) of the Licensing Statistics.
  Mr. YEO: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having a circular to be sent to the bench of each petty sessional division in order that they may have the simple facts before them instead of having to wade through large volumes?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I will consider that point.
  Mr. J. WARD: They are sent.

  Mental Deficiency Act.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Board of Control for the administration of the Mental Deficiency Act recently advertised for male and female inspectors who must be registered medical persons, and that the salaries offered were £400 for men and £350 for women; and, if so, will he explain why this difference of payment was made, seeing that the Board stated that there was no difference in the importance of the work of the men and women inspectors; if the first woman candidate offered the post refused it on account of this difference in salary; if the second candidate accepted it and then withdrew for the same reason; if the post is still unfilled; and if it has hitherto been the practice of Government Departments to pay medical officers the same salaries, whether men or women; and, if so, why this practice has been departed from in this case?
  Mr. McKENNA: The salaries offered were £400 rising to £600, and £350 rising to £550. They were fixed by the Treasury at the rates at which it was believed suitable candidates could be obtained. At that time the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service had not been published, but the proposed salaries appear to comply with the recommendation of the Commission that, where the conditions of employment are approximately the same, the rates of pay should approximate to equality. The first two candidates to whom the post of female inspector was offered declined it on the ground of difference of salary, not because they thought it too small. The post has not yet been filled, but the matter is not at present urgent. There is no rule or practice requiring
  1942
  the salaries of men and women medical officers in the Government service to be the same.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that in practice the remuneration of women medical officers is the same as men medical officers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed not, but I will inquire further into the point.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to infer from the reply just given that the Treasury consider the services of women will not be equal in value to the services of the men, and is that the reason there is this difference in salary? The Report of the Royal Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman refers recommended equal pay for equal work.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Treasury rule was stated by me. Rates were fixed by the Treasury at which it was believed suitable candidates could be obtained. That, I believe, is the practice of the Treasury. With regard to the second point, the work is approximately the same and the rates are approximately the same, but it cannot be said that the work is identical.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing it is impossible to get women doctors at these rates of pay, will they now offer the women the same salary as the men?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure what appointments have been made.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many distinguished women economists are opposed to the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, and think that it would result disastrously to the interests of women?
  Mr. McKENNA: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. For my own part, I should be ready to give equal pay for equal work, but I am not convinced the work is equal.

  Starchfield Prosecution.
  Mr. CASSELasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet completed his inquiries into the circumstances connected with the inquest on the boy Starch-field and the subsequent prosecution?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am consulting the Lord Chancellor in this matter.

  Truck Legislation.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to introduce his Bill on Truck?
  Mr. McKENNA: The law on the subject of Truck is, as my hon. Friend well knows, very complicated, and the drafting of the Bill has presented many difficulties. I hope, however, to be able to introduce it shortly.

  Established Church (Wales) Bill (Commissioners).
  Mr. MOUNTasked the Home Secretary which of the Welsh Church Commissioners will be the paid Commissioners, and the amounts of salary to be paid to them, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: Sir Henry Primrose will be paid a salary not exceeding £1,500 a year. Sir William Plender, to whom the second paid post of Commissioner was offered, has expressed his desire to act without remuneration. My hon. Friend the Member for West Denbighshire will also be an unpaid Commissioner.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: From what date will the salaries be payable?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioners will not be appointed until the Act has passed.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: But from what date will the salaries be payable?
  Mr. McKENNA: The salaries cannot begin until the Commissioners are appointed.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Did Sir William Plender refuse the salary on the ground that he did not wish his hands to be dripping with the fat of sacrilege?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Mr. MOUNT: And is there no necessity for the hon. Baronet the Member for West Denbigshire (Sir J. H. Roberts) to seek reelection as a result of his appointment?
  Mr. McKENNA: There will be no necessity.

  Early Closing (Shops) Order (Aberdare).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a petition or memorial from the Aberdare Chamber of Trade praying for a modifica-
  1944
  tion of the Early Closing (Shops) Order; whether he is aware that a similar petition has been unanimously rejected by the Aberdare Urban District Council, and denounced by the local branch of the Shop Assistants' Union and by the Trades and Labour Council; and whether, when considering the petition, he will bear these facts in mind?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received a letter on the subject from the chamber of trade. I propose to refer it to the district council, but I may point out that I have no power under the Act to amend an Order which has once been confirmed, and that the modification desired by the Chamber could only be effected by the council making a new Order. No representations, have reached me from the Assistants' Union or Trades Council.

  Elementary School Fees (Return).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return of Elementary School Fees standing in the name-of the hon. Member for North Somerset? [Return showing, for the last year for which figures are available, the local education authorities in England and Wales maintaining Elementary Schools in which School Fees are charged, and stating for each authority the numbers of free and fee-charging schools, the number of children paying school pence, the amount of fees, and the amount handed over to school managers in each case; showing further the totals for England and Wales, respectively, of the number of schools charging fees, of children in respect of whom fees are paid, of amounts received as fees, and of amounts handed over to managers.]
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. KING: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he see that this Return is-as accurate as possible, even if it is necessary it should appear very speedily?

  Companies Act (Prospectuses).
  Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the action recently brought against the directors of the Essequibo Rubber and Estates Company in connection with misstatements contained in the company's prospectus;

  1945
  if he is aware that, although the Companies Act attaches a liability to every person who has authorised the issue of a prospectus, it was held that the brokers had not authorised the issue in this case; and if it is proposed to take any steps with a view to defining more clearly the liability under the Companies Act of all persons responsible for issuing prospectuses and whose names appear thereon as guarantees of security?
  Mr. BURNS: I have seen a report in the Press of the proceedings in the case referred to by the hon. Member, from which it appears that the jury found that the brokers had not authorised the issue of the prospectus, and judgment was given in their favour. The, question whether the issue of a prospectus has been authorised by any person is one of fact, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to introduce legislation to alter the provisions of Section 84 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Trade how many, if any, Labour Exchanges outside Wales have been closed and agencies been established in their place, and where they are situated?
  Mr. BURNS: Local agencies have been substituted for Labour Exchanges at Eckington, Harwich, Hinckley, Rushden, Skipton, Truro, Winsford, and Yeadon. Labour Exchanges have been closed and no local agency substituted at Leith Docks, Sheepscar, Buckton Vale, Burnley (Elm Street), Beeston, Lees, Netherfield, Milnsbridge, and Waterfoot. Other changes, including the substitution of local agencies for Labour Exchanges in some districts and the substitution of Labour Exchanges for local agencies in others are under consideration.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman now convinced that a mistake was made in introducing these Labour Exchanges?
  Mr. BURNS: There is no justification for that suggestion.

  POST OFFICE.

    CITY BRANCH OFFICES.
    Mr. YEOasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the increase in the number of counter transac-
    1946
    tions that has taken place at the Hatton Garden and Barbican branch post offices during the past year; whether he can say if adequate staff has been added to meet this increase of work; and, having regard to the complaints from the staff at those offices of overwork and to the number of counter losses in the Eastern Central District post offices, he will have inquiry made into these matters at an early date?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): I am aware that an increase has taken place in the number of counter transactions at the offices mentioned. Additional staff has been provided to meet the increase, and while there is still pressure in the evening at the Hatton Garden office, the accommodation available unfortunately does not admit of any further alterations at present. The question will, however, receive attention as soon as extended accommodation can be provided. No complaints of overwork have been received from the staff. The number of cases in which members of the staff at the offices in the Eastern Central District have reported counter losses has not increased, but decreased, in the course of the last few months.

    WAGES (AVERAGE INCREASES).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Postmaster-General if he will explain the statement concerning 25,800 adult male servants who are to receive an average increase of 1s. 6d. a week, estimated to cost £75,000, seeing that an average increase of Is. 6d. a week for the number of persons mentioned amounts to more than £100,000 a year?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount of 1s. 6d. a week, which, as I stated in debate, was an approximate estimate, refers to Post Office servants in Great Britain only. The case of persons in Ireland is still under consideration.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Postmaster-General if the outdoor postmen at Llandyssul, Cardiganshire, are in Class 4 with a maximum weekly wage of 23s.; whether the outdoor postmen at Lampeter are in Class 5 with a maximum weekly wage of 21s.; and whether, in view of the much larger population of Lampeter as compared with Llandyssul, and owing to the higher cost of living in the former town, he will see his way to place the outdoor postmen of Lampeter in the same favourable position as those at Llandyssul?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The classification of the offices mentioned is correctly stated, but the maximum wages of the postmen are 31s. and 29s. a week, respectively. The question whether a higher classification is warranted for the outdoor force at Lampeter sub-office will be considered in connection with the general inquiry which is being taken in hand in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee, but it may be some considerable time before the matter can be decided.

    PERTH OFFICE (UNITS OF WORK).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked what are the units of work in the Perth post office, including telephone business?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The volume of work according to the latest returns, amounts to 591 units.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Postmaster-General at what stage the installation of the telephone at Carrickmacross now is; when will the exchange be working; and whether his Department intend to proceed with the installation of the telephone at Castleblayney and Ballybay?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The work in connection with the proposed exchange at Carrickmacross will be completed by the end of June if no unforeseen difficulty arises. I am not yet in a position to say whether the extension of the telephone system to Castleblayney and Ballybay is justified, but the financial aspect of the case is under consideration.

    CONTINENTAL LETTER RATES.
    Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster-General if he intends to support the proposal put forward for a reduction in the charge for Continental letters to 1½d. for half an ounce; and if such a reduction is supported only as a temporary makeshift pending a reduction to 1d.?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Various proposals for the alteration of the international postage rates will be considered at Madrid. I am not yet in a position to announce what instructions will be given to the British Delegates.

    GREAT YARMOUTH POSTAL FACILITIES.
    Mr. FELLasked why the letter-box which existed for years on the Hall Quay, Great Yarmouth, has been abolished since the completion of the new post office, and what this completion has to do with the
    1948
    matter; and why the facilities for posting letters should be curtailed in a growing borough?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am having inquiries made into the matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    ENGINEERING REVISION.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Postmaster-General whether a number of men rejected under the engineering revision of 1911 are recognised by their superior officers as being amongst the most efficient officers in the service; will he say in what manner the qualifications of the men were judged; is he aware that a number of men who were selected had not passed a Civil Service examination at all; and, if so, will he endeavour to find some means of removing the hardship to the efficient long-service men who were rejected?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The men rejected at the revision of 1911 were not considered by their superior officers to be as well qualified as the men selected for inclusion in the new class of assistant engineers. Some of the selected men had been recruited before a special examination had been established for the class of assistant engineers, but they all held Civil Service certificates. The claims of the men rejected in 1911 are being considered as suitable vacancies arise.
    Mr. HUNT: Are young men from the universities still to come straight from the universities without any practical knowledge and be put over the heads of long-service men with large practical experience? Is that going on?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: When a question was asked on this on a previous occasion, I said the candidates from the universities were a satisfactory class. I have no-intention of interfering with the arrangement.

    LOSS ON TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
    Colonel WILLIAMSasked the Post master-General on what figures he bases his assertion that the loss on telegraphs is about £300,000, since the Financial Statement presented in connection with the Budget for 1914–15 appears to give a deficiency of £845,700; and whether to this latter figure there ought to be added £271,500 for interest on capital, so making the deficiency £1,117,000?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The loss on the telegraph service of about £350,000, which I mentioned in the Debate on the Post Office Vote, did not, as I explained in the course of my speech, include any allowance for interest on the purchase-money, or for the liability for pensions, or for amortisation of the original purchase-money. It represented the deficiency as shown in the recently published accounts on commercial lines for the year 1912–13—ride House of Commons Paper 94—after deducting the receipts for that year from the expenses of administration, operating, and maintenance, including the amounts expended by other Government Departments. The figures in the Budget Financial Statement relate to voted expenditure for 1914–15; and therefore are not comparable—without modification—with the commercial account figures. But, taking the Budget Financial Statement, there is a deficiency of £845,729, which, added to £271,691 for interest on the original capital expenditure, will amount to about £1,117,000, as stated by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by speaking of "commercial lines"?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: "Commercial accounts," I said.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, "commercial lines."
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That was a slip of the tongue. It should be commercial accounts. I present accounts to the House of Commons in a White Paper differentiating the expenditure between the telephones and telegraphs, and showing the appropriations to the telephone system.

  Cottages (Rural Areas).
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the President of the Local Government Board if it is still the intention of the Government to meet the deficiency of cottages in rural areas by undertaking the building of them by a Government Department on a large scale; if so, when they propose to start, and in what localities; and how they propose to find the money for the scheme?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Legislation will be necessary to enable the building of cottages in rural areas to be undertaken by the State. I regret that I am not at present in a position to say when such legislation will be introduced.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Agriculture stated seven or eight months ago that an immediate start was going to be made by building 10,000 cottages by a central Department; and are we to understand that the matter is now indefinitely postponed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Six, the hon. Member must not assume that. I cannot accept the accuracy of his quotation.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until something definite is known as to the legislative proposals of the Government all private enterprise is at a standstill, and the shortage of cottages is getting a little more serious-than it was before?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. Rural district councils are now applying in considerable numbers for loans to build cottages.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

  Relieving Officers (Mental Deficiency Act, 1913).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the consent of his Department is necessary to the employment of relieving officers of Poor Law unions for the purpose of ascertaining what persons in the administrative area of the mental deficiency authority will become subject to the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913; whether such consent is a condition precedent to their employment in the case both of half-time and whole-time officers; whether such consent, if any, should be obtained by boards of guardians or by the committees for the care of the mentally deficient set up under the above Act; whether such officers will be permitted to accept separate and additional remuneration for this work; and whether, in the event of the Board's consent being necessary, they will, in order to save trouble and delay, give a general consent to the employment of any such officers for this purpose, at any rate throughout the administrative area concerned?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under the Regulations of the Local Government

  1951
  Board relieving officers are required to devote their whole time to the service of the guardians, and the consent of the Board must be given before they can undertake other duties. In a circular letter addressed to the boards of guardians, on 31st March last, the Board stated that they would be willing to consider proposals from the guardians to enable their officers to undertake duties under the Mental Deficiency Act. Where relieving officers are allowed to undertake such duties I think that they may properly receive remuneration for them from the county authority. As regards any county in which a desire is expressed by the county council and the guardians that these officers should be employed, a general consent would be given.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Would it not be possible to give such general consent if the county made application, even if the separate bodies of boards of guardians did not?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the guardians are unwilling that their officers should perform these functions and accept such remuneration, I am not sure that the Board would be prepared to override their wishes. That would be a matter for consideration.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Would it not be possible to give such general approval on the footing that in such a case the boards of guardians were prepared to give their consent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider that.

  Employment of Troops (Civil Disturbances).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister when the Committee to consider the conditions under which troops may be employed to quell civil disturbances arising out of trade disputes is to be appointed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that a Select Committee of this House would be the most suitable form of inquiry, and I will do my best to expedite its appointment.

  Dowlais Roman Catholic School.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  1952
  ment a question, of the gist of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is aware that twenty-eight parents of children belonging to the Dowlais Roman Catholic school have been fined or imprisoned for not sending their children to school; and whether, as the Board of Education has now agreed to hold an inquiry into the causes of the dispute between the local education authority and the parents, he will consider whether he can advise that all proceedings against the parents be suspended, and those now in prison be released, pending the result of the proposed inquiry?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon Gentleman only gave me notice of this question shortly before three o'clock. I have had to be in my place here since, and I have had no opportunity of making the inquiry which I shall have to make before I can reply to his question.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: As the matter is one of considerable urgency, I shall repeat the question to-morrow, unless there is an opportunity this evening on the Motion for Adjournment, when I shall raise it.

  Finance Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Finance Bill, which, I think, we were promised we should have yesterday, has not yet been circulated; and whether he thinks we really ought to be asked to discuss the Financial Resolution on the Home Rule Bill, which is very largely affected by the Finance Bill, without seeing its provisions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know about the circulation of the Bill, but all the necessary information was supplied with regard to the Irish matter by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board two nights ago.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not. It is very desirable that we should have the terms of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Motion for the Adjournment all that the President of the Local Government Board supplied was the amount of the expenditure; and that the terms of the Clauses of the Finance Bill are extremely important?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I gave what were in effect the terms of the Finance Bill so far as they relate to Ireland. The

  1953
  provisions are extremely brief and are in substance what I stated in answer to the hon. Member on the adjournment the night before last. I think that when he sees the Finance Bill he will have no cause of complaint.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the Prime Minister give us any explanation why the Bill has not been circulated?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am told by my right hon. Friend that there are one or two points of detail which are still outstanding and which have delayed the circulation of the Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why was it not possible to circulate the Clauses which deal with Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend gave the whole substance of those Clauses two nights ago.
  Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked for the draft of those Clauses?

PRIVATE BILL.
  NORTHWICH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B) Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS.
Sir PHILIP SASSOON: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to consolidate, with Amendments, the Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1890, the Margarine Act, 1887, and the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907."
In presenting this Bill to the House, I should like to preface my remarks by a reference to the Bill brought in the other day by the President of the Local Government Board. To some extent the objects of that Bill and of the one which I desire to submit for your approval are the same. Both aim at the improvement of the health of the general public by safeguarding them from one of its greatest dangers—the sale of impure or contaminated' food stuffs. But while the right hon. Gentleman's Bill deals only with the regulation of the sale of milk and the sanitary condition of dairies, the Bill which I have the honour to introduce seeks to cover the whole field of the contamination and adulteration of articles of public consumption. Hon. Members will he aware that the present law upon such subjects lies concealed, often very successfully concealed, in a number of different Statutes. The inevitable result is that for the layman, who is, after all, most interested in the observance of the law, it is extremely difficult to discover what he may do or may not do, what are his rights and what his duties. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, if it becomes law, will only add one more to an already inconveniently lengthy list. The object of
1966
the present Bill is to consolidate into one consistent and comprehensive whole all the existing statute-law governing the subject with which it deals.
I do not think that at this stage in legislative progress I need labour the advantages of consolidating Acts. We have had within recent years a number of most successful examples of such Acts. There can be no doubt that they add immensely to the safety and convenience of the general public, and the ease and expenditure with which justice is administered. I shall say nothing further, therefore, on that score; but, besides consolidation, the Bill also introduces certain amendments of the existing law. At present the powers of officers under the Food and Drugs Acts to purchase or take samples of articles of food or drugs for the purpose of analysis are restricted to articles or drugs which are or have been actually exposed for sale. The present Bill gives power to take samples for analysis at any time after the process of manufacture or preparation for consumption is completed. Further, the powers now possessed by the Local Government Board of fixing by regulations the standards of purity of, and use of, preservatives in certain articles are extended to all articles affected by the Bill. An even more important change is a proposal to set up a Committee of fifteen persons of a representative character to advise the Board in the passing of such last-mentioned regulations. The existing provisions relating to the defence of warranty have also been revised with the intention of making it more difficult for the seller of an impure or adulterated article to escape the proper consequences of his act. Additional innovations deal with the compulsory registration of vendors of milk and butter, the infliction of imprisonment for repeated offences, exemption of officers from the necessity of entering into recognisances and the granting of analysts' certificates. I have said enough, I think, to explain the general scope of the Bill, and to show that it does not necessarily conflict with any Bill already before the House. It is in the belief that the changes it introduces are for the public benefit that I move that it be now read the first time.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Philip Sassoon, Mr. Mills, Mr. Crooks, Sir James Yoxall, Mr. Denniss, Viscount

1967
Castlereagh, and Captain Wilson. Pre-tented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed.

HEREDITARY TITLES (TERMINATION).
Mr. PONSONBY: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill for the termination of hereditary titles among His Majesty's subjects."
This is an appropriate moment to introduce such a measure, as the activities of the peers, the conferring of peerages, and the future existence of the House of Peers are questions very much in the public eye just now. A very large majority of Members are agreed that the hereditary principle for legislators is not desirable, and, therefore, if a peer has no longer a right to be a legislator by right of birth, it is surely desirable that the title should be allowed to lapse, more especially if the title had not been conferred on him for any special merit, and is, so to speak, void of any significance. These hereditary titles and distinctions are relics of the past, and are very much out of place in a democratic country. They only serve to accentuate class distinctions and to set up class barriers, and they are the main cause of the quite unfathomable snobbishness, obsequiousness, sycophancy, and flunkey-ism, which, I am sorry to say, are a very marked and very undesirable feature in British social life. After all, the peerage is not a very ancient institution. George III. conferred 388 peerages, and since the Reform Act no fewer than 450 peers have been created.
Earl WINTERTON: How many since 1906?
Mr. PONSONBY: I believe an enormous number, but I am not dealing with this question at all from a party point of view. Most men are quite free to choose their own profession or trade or the walk in life that they desire to pursue. There is only one man in the community who is not, and that is the eldest son of a peer if he survives his father. For him there is no outlet. He is compelled to become a peer. He cannot avoid it. In a very interesting article in the "Nineteenth Century" some years ago, written by Mr. Curzon, Mr. Brodrick and Lord Wolmer, who are
1968
now Lord Curzon, Lord Midleton, and Lord Selborne, they describe the position of such a man very well. They say:—
"The world supposes him to be the fortunate heir of what is called the accident of birth. He is in reality the hapless victim of the accident of death. He has become a peer. From this lot there is no escape."
There are several Members of the House who, in the course of time and nature, will have to leave us, not because they want to or because we want them to, but-because they are obliged, under the present system, to join in the deliberations of the moribund Assembly at the end of the corridor. This Bill deals only with hereditary titles. Of course that would include, the 1,100 baronets. It would have the effect, on the whole, of mitigating the present appetite that there is for titles, but I am not attacking in this Bill at all the practice of giving a title to a man for conspicuous services. It is a short Bill There are three operative Clauses. The first enacts that after the passing of the Act it shall be lawful for any peer or baronet to disclaim his or her peerage or baronetcy or hereditary title by a deed poll to be registered in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, just in the same way as a man who now desires to change his name proceeds. I may be asked whether anyone will take advantage of that. I am inclined to think there are a number of men who are very much embarrassed by a high sounding title which has been conferred in the past on some very distinguished ancestor. I think it is very hard on them that they should, without their consent, have to go through life bearing these very distinguished titles. I believe that there are other Noble Lords who would take advantage of this first-Clause, and would be glad to step down from these little artificial pedestals, and take their stand on a footing of equality with the rest of us.
The second Clause simply enacts that should such a holder of a title do this, his successor would not inherit the title, but the title would lapse. The third Clause enacts that any heir or heiress to a peerage or baronetcy or other hereditary title born after the passing of this Act shall not succeed to the title, and thus gradually, in the course of another generation, these hereditary titles would cease to exist. It is a gradual process, and I think the Prime Minister might keep the fact in mind when he is thinking of his proposals for the reform of the Second Chamber, because,

1969
whatever controversy may go on for the reform of the Second Chamber, if my Bill were law, there would be a quiet process of diminution of numbers in that Chamber towards the complete extinction going on all the time. This Bill exercises no compulsion on any living man. It merely frees them from the inexorable compulsion by which they are at present bound. The Bill gives an opportunity for the present holders of hereditary titles to free themselves from the rather spurious prominence which they enjoy, and from the disadvantages and disabilities which have been forced upon them without their consent, while at the same time it safeguards future generations against the handicap of unmerited privilege, and eliminates slowly from the community an institution which has come to be rather ridiculous. We pray in our churches, and we have prayed for many generations now, that all our nobility may be endowed with grace, wisdom and understanding. I will say nothing about grace, because that would be personal, but with regard to wisdom and understanding, in spite of our supplications, we on this side of the House feel that there is a very considerable lack of those qualities amongst those who occupy high positions in the Second Chamber, and we are inclined to think that these old relics of the past should be swept away in a state which prides itself on being democratic, and we feel that these artificial distinctions which stand between one man and another should be abolished, so that we may go forward with our progressive views with more hope of success in the future.
Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member received the consent of the Crown to deal with this matter?
Mr. PONSONBY: I have had that point under consideration, Sir, and I was advised that it would only be at a later stage that I would have to get the consent of the Crown—after the First Reading had been allowed by this House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Alden, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Edgar Jones, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Morrell, and Sir George Scott Robertson. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 11th June, and to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to amend the provisions for the Government of Ireland,—
  To authorise the payment in each year out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into the Irish Exchequer, or to any body or person in the stead of the Irish Exchequer,—

  (a) of a fixed sum based on the cost, at the time of the passing of the said Act, of the branches of Government to be administered thereunder by the Irish Government, and, in the case of the future transfer of any other branches of Government to the Irish Government, of further sums based on the savings to the Exchequer o£ the United Kingdom resulting from the transfer; the amount of the said fixed sum and any such further sums to be determined in manner provided by the said Act, with power to make payments on account of those sums pending that determination; and

  (b) of a sum of five hundred thousand pounds, diminishing in each year after the third year of payment by the sum of fifty thousand pounds until it is reduced to the sum of two hundred thousand pounds; and

  (c) of sums equal to the proceeds of any taxes imposed by the Irish Parliament in pursuance to the powers given by the said Act, the amount of those proceeds to be determined in manner provided by the said Act:

  And to authorise such Customs Duties to be charged on articles brought into Great Britain from Ireland, or into Ireland from Great Britain., and such alterations of drawbacks or allowances to be made in respect of those articles as may be provided for by the said Act in cases where any Customs or Excise Duty levied in Great Britain is levied at a different rate from that at which the duty is levied in Ireland, or where any Customs or Excise

  1971
  Duty is levied in Great Britain and not levied in Ireland, or levied in Ireland and not levied in Great Britain:
  And to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any salaries, pensions, superannuation allowances, gratuities, or compensation, for the payment of which to or on behalf of any judges or Irish officers, or officers or constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary or of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, provision may be made in pursuance of the said Act; and also of any sums for the payment of which out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of moneys provided by Parliament, provision, may be made by the said Act in the event of the failure of the Irish Government to make any such payment.—[Mr. Birrell.]
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Committee will not expect, and will still less desire, me to go over again the familiar paths which we trod during the many weary days when we discussed the financial provisions of the Home Rule Bill in the first year that it was before the House. But it will probably be desirable and for the convenience of the Committee that I should make a brief statement as to the changes in the financial relations between the Imperial and the Irish Exchequers which are resulting since that time owing to two causes—first, the lapse of time and the changes that have followed in its train, and, secondly, the proposals of my right hon. Friend in his Budget for this year. In the first place, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were at the outset to trouble them with a few figures showing as precisely and as clearly as I can what the Irish revenue and expenditure have been, are, and will be, under the conditions with which we have had to deal in the past and will have to deal in the future. In the financial year in which the Home Rule Bill was introduced, 1912–13, the total true revenue from Ireland was £10,600,000, and the total expenditure on Irish account contemplated by the Home Rule Bill was £12,600,000. That includes the expenditure on all the services proposed to be transferred to the Irish Government. It includes also the expenditure for Irish purposes on all the services reserved to the Imperial Government—such as insurance, old age pensions, police, and so forth—and it includes the sum of £500,000 which the Bill proposes to allot to Ire-
  1972
  land as a margin or surplus, a sum which the Committee will remember was to remain at that figure for three years and then to be gradually reduced until, at the end of eight years, it had been lowered to a sum of £200,000. In the year 1912–13 the total true revenue was, as I have said, £10,600,000, the expenditure £12,600,000, and the deficit £2,000,000, of which the Committee will remember £1,500,000 was wholly independent of the Home Rule Bill, and was in no sense caused by the Home Rule Bill, which was not a matter of accounting under the Bill. It was the existing deficit on Irish account with or without Home Rule, the additional £500,000 being the further sum allotted by the Home Rule Bill itself.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is that the normal deficit?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Including the surplus, the deficit was £2,000,000. In the year 1913–14 the Irish revenue had somewhat improved, and the expenditure had also slightly increased. The total revenue was £11,000,000, and the total expenditure was £12,800,000, again including the surplus of £500,000. And the deficit in that year would be £1,800,000. This year, apart from Budget changes or any question of new taxation or additional Grants, the revenue would be still £11,000,000, and the total expenditure under the Home Rule Bill would be £13,300,000. The expenditure would be somewhat increased, and the deficit would be £2,300,000.
  Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give separate figures for the Irish services?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I could do so, but it rather complicates it. I will find them in the course of the Debate, and send them to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. CASSEL: These figures are all estimates?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figures of 1912–13 and 1913–14 are ascertained figures after the close of the financial year. The figures for 1914–15 are necessarily an estimate.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what expenditure the additional deficit of £500,000 in 1914–15 over 1913–14 is to be attributed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost of the Reserved Services were as follows;—1912–13, £5,380,000, and 1913–14, £5,490,000. For 1914–15, with the Budget changes, the estimate is £5,890,000. The cost of the Transferred Services in 1912–13 was £6,750,000; in 1913–14 it was £6,870,000; and in 1914–15, with the Budget changes, it is estimated at £7,250,000. To those figures have to be added in each case the surplus of £500,000, and there are quite small changes in the Post Office revenue which are not included in the Reserved or Transferred Services.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the last figure take account of the Budget changes?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figure which I quoted, £13,300,000, does not.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman gave it as including the Budget changes.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, I will come to that now. The figure is practically unaltered. With respect to changes effected by the Budget—first with regard to revenue. Revenue from Ireland will be increased under three heads—Income Tax, Super-tax, and Estate Duty. In the first year, 1914–15, only a part of the increase will be realised. The Income Tax from Ireland, it is estimated, will be increased by £164,000, the Supertax by £75,000, and the Estate Duties by £20,000. That is a total increase of revenue of £259,000 from Ireland in the present financial year. In the following year, 1915–16, it is estimated that the Income Tax in Ireland will bring in an additional £185,000, the Super-tax £175,000, and the Estate Duties £75,000, or a total of £435,000.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Does that mean that the taxation of Ireland will be increased next year by £435,000?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is so; but from that must be deducted a small sum of £35,000, arrears of Super-tax, which it is expected will be gathered in in that year. But, other things being equal, subsequent years would show an increased revenue of £400,000, because the figures for 1915–16 would include £35,000 for Super-tax collected, which does not properly belong to that financial year.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Is the increase which the right hon. Gentleman mentions an increase arising from this year's
  1974
  Budget alone, or does it take into account the natural increase that will arise?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is an increase due to the new Budget, and is the Treasury Estimate of the measure of the financial changes which would result from the new Budget taxes. On the other side of the account—and I am sure that hon. Members from Cork will be as much, interested in that as in the revenue side—the new Grants to Ireland as estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be-nine-eightieths of the Grants of the new services for education, and nine-eightieths of other Grants except police, and the sums will be as follows: I take first the present financial year, when a specified portion of these Grants will of course be received in Ireland as in Great Britain. For education there will be no additional Grant this year. But for the services, other than education, for which additional Grants are made in relief of the rates, the Grants will amount to £172,000. The proportion of the additional sum devoted to increasing the pay of Post Office servants who are in receipt of low rates of wages is estimated—but this is quite a conjectural estimate—at £3,000. The proportion of the Grants for tuberculosis, nursing, and laboratories, all of which will be Transferred Services, will be £22,500. For insurance, which is a Reserved Service, the amount is £52,000, and there will be cost of collection of Duties, which is a Reserved Service, of from £1,000 to £1,500. This would make a total of £251,000 this year. So that the present financial year will show, if the Estimates are realised, an increased revenue from Ireland of £259,000, and an increased expenditure in Ireland of £251,000. Then in a full, year—I have already given the figure of revenue, which will amount to £400,000—the Grants will be: Education, £112,500; other services, £517,000; Post Office wages, £3,000; nursing, tuberculosis, and labroratories, £67,500; insurance, £65,000; collection of Duties—an Estimate which must be-somewhat conjectural—£1,500; which gives a total of £767,000. So that the effect of adding those sums to the two-sides of the account will be as follows: Let me remind the Committee that, apart from the Budget changes, the revenue this year would be £11,050,000, and the expenditure £13,390,000, or a deficit of £2,340,000, including the surplus. After the Budget changes for the financial year 1914–15, the revenue will be £11,310,000

  1975
  and the expenditure £13,640,000, or a deficit of £2,330,000—that is to say, the deficit will be practically unaltered. But in 1915–16—I am not taking into account any changes that may come from growth of population or normal growth of expenditure, but am merely making the addition due to the Budget changes and leaving everything else unaltered, and apart from the £35,000 arrears of Super-tax—
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman allow anything for increase?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, I am simply taking the figures and applying a full year's charge of the Budget of this year. The total revenue would be £11,450,000 and the total expenditure would be £14,150,000, which would leave a deficit of £2,700,000. That last figure would, under the provisions of the Home Rule Bill, be reduced in a period of eight years by about £300,000.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One question in regard to the new Grants to Ireland: Are they to be subject to the same conditions as those which are made in England? A large portion of the English Grants are dependent on the authorities speeding up or improving the local services. Will those conditions apply to Ireland?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. That will be left to the Irish Parliament, to whom they will be handed over. They are being paid over to a legislative body, which is the proper body to exercise control so far as control is needed over the local governing bodies within its area.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the local Parliament obliged to spend it on the same purposes or not?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; it will be left to its own discretion.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not obliged to make any valuation in order to get it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, the local Parliament is not obliged to make any valuation. These are really matters of domestic regulation. If you are to establish at all the principles of self-government in a country such as Ireland, surely these are matters which should be properly within the competence of the subordinate Parliament of that country.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does that not depend upon whose money it is?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The greater part of these Grants is Irish money.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: No.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, it is.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is not there a difference to the bad of £360,000 a year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, there is that, but the greater part of the Grant is Irish money drawn from Ireland, which is being returned to the control of the Irish Parliament for Irish purposes.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Has any separate calculation been made as to how much goes in relief of local purposes to Ulster?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I shall come to that later, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me what he means by Ulster?
  Sir E. CARSON: By Ulster I mean Ulster.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No calculation has been made in respect of this.
  Sir E. CARSON: Why?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For reasons, which I will give subsequently, in our view it is not necessary to attempt to make a separate calculation of revenue and expenditure in respect of particular parts of Ireland.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be a deficit of £2,233,000 this year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the year 1914–15.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: And how much next year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It includes the whole of the expenditure from the date of the Home Rule Bill. Everything of every kind is included. This, of course, is not the occasion on which the Committee can enter into the Budget proposals themselves, or as to the propriety of particular Grants proposed to be made to Ireland. They are not dealt with in this Resolution. This Resolution, on which the financial portions of the Home Rule Bill are founded, does not touch the distribution of the Grants under the Finance Bill of this year. That is an entirely separate matter, and I have only given the figures in order that the Committee may have

  1977
  before them as clearly as I am able to present it the whole financial case with which Parliament is now dealing. Therefore, it would be improper for me to debate in any way the character of the Grants which my right hon. Friend proposes that Parliament should vote under the financial proposals of this year. They will be embodied, not in the Home Rule Bill, but in the Finance Bill, and the occasion for debating those Grants will come when the Finance Bill is before the House. But hon. Members opposite will no doubt say, in relation to the Home Rule Bill itself, "How is it that you ask Parliament to establish a system of Home Rule partly for the reason that the outgoings from the British Treasury would be to a great extent reduced, and nevertheless we now find that the outgoings are about to be increased in your financial proposals of this year." Was it not the case, they may ask very fairly, that I myself when "peaking in this House On previous occasions upon the financial portions of the Home Rule Bill suggested that Irish accounts, so far as the Transferred Services were concerned, were to be stereotyped at a fixed sum to be embodied in the Transferred Sum, and now we propose an increase of the Transferred Sum above the amount set out in the Home Rule Bill.
  It was always intended that any fresh revenue derived from the normal growth of Ireland's population or prosperity, should go to the British Exchequer and should gradually go to meet deficits which existed previously to Home Rule, and which still existed after Home Rule—that all such normal increases of revenue, whatever they might be, should gradually fill up the deficits until the the two sides of the account should balance, and that Ireland should no longer be subsidised from the Imperial Exchequer. It was never contemplated that the Imperial Parliament should levy in Ireland additional taxation for purely British purposes. Necessarily this Parliament must retain the power to increase the taxation of Ireland for Imperial purposes, since the United Kingdom Parliament must be the supreme legislative and fiscal authority for all parts of these islands. Therefore there was never any question of destroying the power of this House to levy additional taxation, if occasion required, in Ireland as in Great Britain; but it was never contemplated that the power should be used to raise additional taxation in Ireland for purposes
  1978
  from which Ireland herself was excluded, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put this matter very clearly in the course of the Debates on the Clauses of the Bill in Committee. On the 2nd of December, 1912, in the course of a speech my right hon. Friend made-on that occasion, there is a passage which is pertinent to the present situation, and I must ask the Committee to allow me to read it. My right hon. Friend said:—
  "Let us take, first of all, an instance of a fresh burden to be imposed. I will take the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. Let us assume there is a naval crisis, and it is necessary to raise an additional sum by means of taxation. That burden will be borne by the United Kingdom. What will be the position of the Imperial Chancellor of the Exchequer then? The position would be this: He would levy a tax which would extend over the whole of the United Kingdom to meet an absolutely new emergency. Let us suppose he puts an additional twopence on the Income Tax to meet a great naval crisis. Not only would he be in a position, after the appointed day, to make that charge over the whole of the United Kingdom, but I think it would be his obvious duty to do so. It would be a charge that ought to be borne by the whole of the United Kingdom. That is my view with regard to that question. I do not think there will be any difference so far as the general Imperial burden or obligation is concerned after the passing of the Home Rule Bill from the position which obtains at the present time."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the present charge for Imperial purposes?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, for Imperial purposes. My right hon. Friend went on to say this:—
  "If it was a charge with respect to some burden for the benefit of Great Britain alone, some charge, for instance, for a social scheme which was purely for the benefit of England, Scotland and Wales, then I should consider it a distinct broach of faith to put a charge on Ireland for something in the benefit of which she did not participate, unless there was some Grant to Ireland equivalent to the benefit conferred upon Great Britain.
  That was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. There were statements to a similar effect by other Members of the Government, and I think I myself in the course of those Debates made the statement that it would be regarded as inconsistent with anything in the scheme of the Home Rule Bill for Parliament to exercise the power—which is necessarily and properly retained to levy new taxation in Ireland—to levy those taxes uniformly over the United Kingdom for purposes in which Great Britain, as distinct from Ireland, specifically benefited, and that if the purposes were of that character and so intended, then a corresponding benefit ought to be given to Ireland.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Will this power remain under the Home Rule Bill when it comes into force, and the Irish Members are reduced here?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Of course it will. If has never been suggested by anyone in' this House, at any stage, that Parliament should not impose any taxes in Ireland, but if that power were to be exercised arbitrarily in the manner my right hon. Friend condemns, of course it would be within the competence of Parliament, in a single year, to levy £2,000,000 of taxation specially from Ireland, and' thereby, at a stroke, pay off the whole of the Irish deficit.' That would be within its competence, but obviously it would be a great injustice to do so, nor was it ever contemplated that additional taxation should be imposed on Ireland and used for expenditure in Great Britain. Parliament will judge according to the equities of each case, after the passing of Home Rule, as before the passing of Home Rule, and that is the course we ask the House of Commons this year to adopt.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: For weeks while the Home Rule Bill was going through I tried to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how this would work. The right hon. Gentleman has now made it clear. As I understand it, after Home Rule, this House, whenever there is any English or Scottish social reform to be carried through, will levy taxation on the whole of Ireland, and impose that taxation, even though they do not wish it, and hand over money which they may not require.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must have made myself particularly obscure if the right hon. Gentleman draws that conclusion. It will not be at all necessary for the Imperial Parliament to levy taxes over the whole of the United Kingdom. It might levy taxes, if it so desired, specifically upon Great Britain, payable only in Great Britain, and so provide money for purely British purposes. But if it did prefer to levy taxation in Ireland for any British purpose, still obviously it would be right and proper—I cannot understand anybody taking any other view—that it should return to Ireland, at all events, a proportion of the money so raised. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that in any case the taxes in Ireland would be collected by the Imperial authorities; it would not be a case of forcing the Irish Parliament to levy taxation and to receive money which it did not wish to have.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not make it any clearer. If, for instance, Income Tax is levied for the whole of the Kingdom
  1980
  for some purpose in England and Scotland alone,- that means that Ireland is to pay her share of the fund though she may not want the revenue, and might want to reduce taxation.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is what I said. Certainly the supreme control in matters of taxation remains in this House, and such has always been the intention. Hon. Members opposite may say that if we claim that this Bill introduces the principle of federalism in our Constitution, that such a principle would require complete separation of the finance of Ireland, on the one hand, from the finance of the United Kingdom, taken as a whole, on the other. But I would venture to submit that is not so. If the financial arrangements under Federal Constitutions are studied, you will find that very rarely indeed is there any complete separation of finance between the local or State Parliament, and the central or national Parliament. In the United States, indeed, there is practically a complete separation of that character; but in Canada, Australia, Germany, and in other Federations, you find that there is a considerable amount of accounting between the central Exchequer and the local exchequers. Contributions are paid by the central body to local bodies or by the local bodies to the central body, and it is rarely found that in any federation you get a clear cut line between the finance of the local authorities and of the central authority. In any case where there is a clear cut line between the taxes levied by the central and local authorities, you still find that the central Parliament and the local Parliaments both levy taxes of some kind in the same areas. That is one of the necessary marks of federalism. It may almost be taken to be the very essence of a federal Constitution that you should have two governing and fiscal authorities in the same area—the national authority, dealing with all the purposes of the whole body of the nation, and the State or provincial authorities, dealing with the local purposes which are peculiar to their particular areas. With respect to this additional sum, which under the Grants of this year will be receivable by the Irish Parliament, one of the chief complaints which we had to meet in previous Debates on the Home Rule Bill was that Ireland was starved for money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University urged that again and again, and said that the Irish

  1981
  Parliament would find itself inadequately equipped to meet, the charges which would fall upon it. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford on more than one occasion said that, although he approved the financial provisions of the Bill, he, for his part, representing the party of which he is chief, would greatly have preferred that a larger sum should have been placed at the disposal of the Irish Parliament—not an unnatural desire—and the same view was expressed by the hon. Member for North Dublin, who has taken so keen an interest in this matter. Hon. Members for Cork urged the same thing, and said that the Irish Parliament would be confined within too rigid fiscal bounds, and would be unable to carry out all the necessary work of development and improvement in Ireland. Outside this House the same appeal was made by Lord MacDonnell on many occasions, and representations were made that the work of the Irish Parliament; would be hampered unless further money was placed at their disposal. All those representations were quoted with approval by hon. Members opposite. Again and again they brought to their aid the arguments of hon. Members from Cork, of Lord MacDonnell, of the Irish Education Board, and other authorities, who were complaining that the Government had not placed adequate resources at the disposal of the Irish Parliament. And indeed it was said, if you are going to grant Home Rule at all, do it generously, so that the Irish Parliament is started on its career, at all events, not with its hands too tightly tied in matters of finance. These additional Grants, which will be at the disposal of that Parliament, and which are somewhat larger than the sums which will be raised from Ireland in additional taxation, those additional sums at the disposal of the Irish Parliament will greatly facilitate the work of Irish Government, certainly at the outset of the career of the Home Rule Parliament.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: As I understand, as far as the Budget is concerned, there will be no relief at all to Ireland in reference to the, present condition of local taxation accounts. Is that so?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, very much the opposite is the case.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I should like to have that made clear.
  Mr. HERBERTSAMUEL: I endeavoured to make it clear. The figures which I gave
  1982
  clearly show that in the present financial year Ireland will receive for other Services, and these are mainly Grants in aid of the local taxation account, an additional £172,000 above the sums which are now being received, and, further, she will receive for tuberculosis and other Irish purposes in Ireland a sum which will make the total, with the £172,000, a sum of £251,000, that is in the present incomplete year, against which she will pay additional taxation of £259,000.?
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Do those other services mean that, for instance, the Grants to district lunatic asylums in Ireland will be increased in the local taxation account?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should not like to pin myself to any particular Grant, but generally the sum will go to increased Grants for roads, for, I think, lunatic asylums and for local purposes generally, as in Great Britain, for the relief of local rates. That sum of £172,000 will be increased next year to £517,000.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: They will not be for any specific purposes.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What security have we as to that?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not quite follow or comprehend the question. They are Grants equivalent to the Grants, I should have said, which are given in this country for those purposes.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Those Grants will depend entirely on the will of the Irish Parliament?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, that is what I have said. I apologise to the hon. Member. I ought to have made it quite clear that I had said that previously.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman fill in the gap? That will be the case when the Home Rule Bill has become law and is in force, but what will happen to the money in the meantime, this year's money and next?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That money will be distributed as an addition to the existing Grants. There will be temporary provision in the Bill. That Hill will also provide for a larger sum in future as an addition to the Transferred Sum payable under any Act of this Parliament for the establishment of an Irish Parliament.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Will it be a stereotyped sum?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, that will be stereotyped like all the other Grants payable as part of the Transferred Sum under the Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a very complicated matter, but I see the sum is not stated, and does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Irish sum will bear any relation, after its first calculation, to the sum spent in England, and is it to be fixed on a certain proportion of the sum that is first spent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is to be treated precisely in the same way as all other payments made from the Exchequer to the Irish Parliament—that is to say, it is to be fixed on the basis of the cost of Irish government in the year when the Home Rule Bill is passed. What we propose to be inserted in the Finance Bill is a fixed definite sum of so many hundreds of thousands of pounds which is to be added to the Transferred Sum. That is the amount that has been arrived at on the basis of certain services. If I have not made it quite clear, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will ask me further questions, because I am only anxious to make the matter, which I know, and he knows, is most complicated and technical, as plain to the Committee as it is possible for me to make it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will put a specific question. I think I do understand it. Is it not the case that, having fixed a definite sum under the Home Rule Bill, for which we are passing this Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to amend the Home Rule Bill by means of the Finance Bill before the Home Rule Bill has become law?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We are not fixing any definite sum in the Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You are fixing a definite date.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no definite sum fixed in the Home Rule Bill. The Transferred Sum is to be the present cost of Irish government plus the sum of £500,000, reducible subsequently, as I have explained. That provision will remain in the Home Rule Bill as it stands, unaltered. In the Finance Bill there will be a provision to the effect that in that present cost of Irish government is to be included the sum of six hundred odd
  1984
  thousand pounds. That sum has been arrived at in the manner I have suggested. It is equivalent to the increased cost this year of government in England and Scotland and Wales for certain purposes and for certain services, in which Ireland has a part.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the last statement, I think, is not quite accurate. It is the increased cost not this year, but next year.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, I have taken a full year. This year is exceptional.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Therefore, by the Finance Bill you are to make that which is the proportion of the cost of certain services at the passing of the Act mean the cost of certain services a year and a half after the Act has passed.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not necessarily. The right hon. Gentleman will remember it will be about a year after the passage of the Act before it comes into operation, and I think it would be rather sharp practice to say to Ireland you are just a few months too soon, and we are going to deprive you, although we are going to tax you straight away under the Budget of 1914—we are not going to increase your Grants because your Home Rule Bill is coming into operation a few months too soon. That, I am sure, would be a policy quite unworthy of this House.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask a question, as this is a very important matter, namely, whether this stereotyped sum, which the right hon. Gentleman says is to be put into-the Finance Bill, will remain exactly as it is no matter how the revenue from Ireland increases under the taxation imposed this year by the Budget?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, certainly. That is the very essence of the scheme of the Home Rule Bill. As I have endeavoured on very many occasions to explain in this House, I do not know with how much success, the idea is gradually to release Ireland from the position of having her local services paid out of the British taxpayers' pocket, and, consequently, the increases of revenue will be a set-off to the amounts which are to go to that purpose from this House—to be a fixed sum for Irish purposes. Then as to the hon. Member for Cork's objection that we are not imposing in the Finance Bill some condition that these

  1985
  Grants must be allocated to certain particular services after this year, and that they must be dependent upon the efficiency of the local Government, but that these matters are to be left to the discretion of the Irish Parliament. I hope the hon. Member does not so distrust a freely-elected Irish Parliament as to regard them as incompetent adequately to control local government expenditure of that kind.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman is ridiculously misrepresenting me. All that I want to know as a matter of information is whether in return for the £430,000 per year additional taxation, which you are imposing upon Ireland—whether or not any immediate additional relief would be given in the local taxation Grants in Ireland in addition to the sum which would be left dependent upon the will of the Irish Parliament?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As soon as the Irish Parliament comes into being it will have at its disposal this sum, and I have not the smallest doubt it will use the whole amount in the best interests of the Irish people, whether in reduction of rates or for other purposes. When the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) asks me what security he has, be looks at it from the point of view of an anti-Home Ruler, who does not believe in the principle of self-government being applied to Ireland. We do, and are perfectly contented to entrust the expenditure of this money to the representatives of Ireland.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If I may say so, that is not precisely the point of my interruption. What I meant to say was this: You are taking away under the Finance Bill—or proposing to take—certain local Grants in relief of local taxation from Ulster. What security have we in Ulster that the money will be replaced to Ulster by an Irish Parliament?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There again the hon. Member is going on to the question of Ulster, which is a matter fully worthy of separate attention on its own account.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that, and only for the purpose of getting information, may I ask this question? He has said that these Grants, though calculated on the same basis as in England, will not be earmarked. That is, as I understand him; but he has qualified that by the
  1986
  statement that they will be earmarked for one year. Take, for instance, the Grant to increase the salaries of Post Office servants. There is a small sum of £3,000 to increase the salaries of Post Office servants. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman has said that in the year immediately before us that will be applied by this Parliament for that purpose. Does he suggest the Irish Parliament should take it away in the following year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not the smallest doubt that Grants already made for increasing the pay of Irish servants will be continued by the Irish Parliament as a matter of course, and I have no doubt that the Irish Parliament will exercise common sense in their allocation of this money. Let me point out to the hon. Member and to others who have raised this point, that none of the sums which are going to be paid over to the Irish Parliament under the Home Rule Bill will be allocated to particular services at all. They will receive the whole sum of money in a lump—that is, the Transferred Sum—and they, like any other Parliament, will have their revenues at their own disposal.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Earmarked for one year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Those sums will be precisely on the same footing as all other sums which the Irish Parliament will have to dispose of. They will not receive year after year, when Home Rule is established, so many hundreds of thousands of pounds for education, and so many hundreds of thousands of pounds for local government purposes, or so many hundreds of thousands of pounds for Grants-in-Aid to local authorities, but they will receive so many million pounds as the Transferred Sum, and the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will make proposals to his own Parliament for the expenditure of that money in the manner which is best suited to the interests of their constituents.
  Hon. Members have raised, not unnaturally, the question of the effect upon Ulster, and what would occur if Ulster is excluded, or any part of Ulster is excluded. It is not our view, as I stated to the right hon. Gentleman, that it is necessary to embark upon any detailed or elaborate calculation as to the amount of revenue actually received and the amount of expenditure actually made in regard to any localities or particular portion

  1987
  of Ireland, if any portion were excluded from the Home Rule Bill. It is obvious that no such calculation could in practice be made. There does not exist the basis on which you can say precisely how much Income Tax, for example, is derived from certain counties in Ulster, or what is the proportion in those counties of any particular head of Irish expenditure. Questions of the greatest complexity and difficulty would arise, and would, indeed, be almost insoluble. There are difficulties enough, which we believe can be overcome, in disentangling the revenue and expenditure of Great Britain and Ireland, but to attempt to disentangle the revenue and expenditure of particular counties in Ireland from those of the rest of Ireland is a task which could not be undertaken. Therefore, as the Prime Minister has stated on previous occasions, a simple arithmetical proportion will have to be adopted on the basis of which these necessary adjustments will be made.
  I see that I am going somewhat close to the topics which ought properly to be reserved for any amending Bill brought before Parliament for dealing with the question of Ulster. Warned by that intimation, I shall not tread further along that path. Nor, I fear, would it be possible for me to say anything in respect to the question of Customs in this connection—indeed, that also is more appropriate for treatment when that other Bill comes before this House. With regard to the question of the Irish control over Customs Duties, that is embodied in the Home Rule Bill, and is mentioned specifically in this Resolution. Again, I must urge hon. Members to realise what the proposals in the Home Rule Bill with respect to Customs Duties really are. When I was in Canada last autumn I discussed the question of Home Rule with many people. I found an almost universal consensus of opinion in favour of Home Rule—I am not speaking of the details of this particular Bill—but I found very generally the idea prevalent that we proposed to give control over Irish Customs to the Irish Parliament, and that, they thought, was a proposal open to much objection. They were in many cases astounded to learn—
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we, who have not seen this amending Bill, are to debate this matter with the right hon. Gentle-
  1988
  man, who knows what the amending Bill will be?
  The CHAIRMAN: As I understand, what the right hon. Gentleman was saying at the moment had no reference to the amending Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Have you seen the amending Bill?
  The CHAIRMAN: No.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then how can you know whether it has reference to it or not?
  The CHAIRMAN: I understood that what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to was those parts of the existing Bill which are authorised or covered by the last paragraph but one of the Resolution now under consideration.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman was saying that a particular impression existed in Canada respecting the position of Customs under the Home Rule Bill Shall we be in order in this Debate in pointing out that the impression which exists in Canada is exactly the impression which exists in Ireland?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think so. This Resolution is the covering authority for the proposals in the Bill now before the House, and any matter arising out of the Clauses which this Resolution wall authorise can, I think, be referred to by any Member.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Member's interruption was wholly irrelevant. I was not dealing with the question of Ulster or with the question of any amending Bill at all. My remarks had relation solely to the Home Rule Bill as it now stands, and would be relevant to that if no amending Bill had been mentioned or thought of. The impression is prevalent in many quarters that we propose to give to Ireland a control over Customs as complete, say, as that which the Canadians have over their own Customs. Hon. Members who have followed the matter are aware that that is not so; but it is necessary to repeat the fact again and again and again, because the impression evidently is widespread outside that there is to be established Irish control over Irish Customs. The new Irish Parliament will not have power to impose a Customs Duty upon any article on which there is not now or at

  1989
  that time a Customs Duty imposed by this House. The Irish Parliament will have no power to impose a Customs Duty on corn, or any other commodity whatever, except such articles as were already subject to a Customs Duty levied by the Imperial Parliament. The Irish Parliament will have no power—for some reasons I personally regret it, but so the House of Commons have decided—to reduce any Customs Duty on any article imported into Ireland. The sole control for the reduction of Customs wil be vested, as now, in this House. The Irish Parliament will have this power, and this power only, to add to existing Customs an additional percentage, which must not be more than 10 per cent. in any case except in the case of beer and spirits.
  Mr. HEWINS: Ten per cent. on the yield?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is a minor point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is quite a minor point, whether it is yield or whether it is rate. That is a point which has to be dealt with in legislation, but when discussing the principle it is a matter of trivial importance. The power to impose within their own discretion 10 per cent. extra upon the Customs on tea, sugar, cocoa, tobacco, or any other imported commodities which are exposed to a Customs tariff—that is the power, and the sole power, conferred upon the Irish Parliament under the Home Rule Bill in this connection. If they exercise that power, they are subject to the obligation—it is not left within their option—to impose a corresponding Excise Duty on any similar commodity produced in Ireland, so that it shall not be possible for the additional 10 per cent., or possibly more in the case of beer and spirits, to have any protective effect for the benefit of Irish industries and the disadvantage of British industries.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the Irish Parliament have power to grant export bounties?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is an entirely different question. That is the sole power for dealing with Customs Duties vested in the Irish Parliament. I trust that, both inside this House and outside, it will be understood, when it is suggested that the Irish Parliament are to have control over Irish Customs, as our Colonies and Dominions overseas have control over their local Customs, that the Home Rule Bill proposes nothing of the kind. It pro-
  1990
  poses a very moderate power to make a small addition to Imperial Customs Duties for the benefit of Irish local expenditure. I trust that with the new sources of revenue which will now be placed at the disposal of the Irish Parliament it will not be necessary for them to levy even these small additional imposts. I have detained the Committee much longer than I anticipated, partly because Question Time seems to have been extended into this Debate, and I have been called upon—I do not complain of it in any degree—to answer a considerable number of questions on a subject which is, of necessity, technical and complicated. I must thank the Committee for the patience with which, nevertheless, they have listened to my remarks, and I have now the honour to move the Resolution standing in the name of my right hon. Friend.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: I think that this Debate really affords an occasion for us to protest against the unfair way in which the Government treat the House of Commons. In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, would anyone believe that the Government contemplated stifling all discussion on this question, and that it was only due to an accident that we have this opportunity of discussing it I That accident was that the Prime Minister happened to be present when an Amendment was moved to allow an opportunity to discuss this Financial Resolution. I will at all events pay the Prime Minister the qualified and relative tribute that he has more respect than any of his colleagues for the traditions of this House and the rights of the minority. If any of his colleagues, instead of the Prime Minister himself, had been in charge, I am confident that we should have had no opportunity at all of discussing this matter—a question in reference to which the President of the Local Government Board has thought it necessary to make a statement, occupying one hour out of the four and a quarter hours allotted, to show all the changes that have taken place since the matter was last considered. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman was subject to interruption, but on so complicated a matter it is not fair to the House of Commons that we should be allowed only four and a quarter hours for the whole discussion in Committee, while the Report stage is to be taken without any discussion at all. Moreover, we are left to-day without the important Clauses of the Finance Bill, upon which really depends all that the

  1991

  right hon. Gentleman has explained to us. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to give us an explanation of what the provisions of the Finance Bill are; but, accurate though he is, any summary of a Clause is insufficient and unsatisfactory; we ought to have the terms of the Clauses themselves. The right hon. Gentleman revealed this to the House, that in fact, in his view, an additional Grant is being made to Ireland. In respect to that we say—whether it be right or wrong—it is not fair to the House of Commons to deprive Members of all opportunity of discussing whether that Grant ought or ought not to be made.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: An opportunity will come later.
  Mr. CASSEL: But we ought to have an opportunity of discussing it before the Home Rule Bill comes up for Third Beading. The truth is we are discussing entirely different financial proposals to those which we were discussing in 1912, and those which we were discussing in 1913. We profess to be proceeding under the Parliament Act, the essence of which is that we should be dealing with the same Bill, but we are dealing in fact and in substance with a different Bill and with entirely different financial proposals. The first difference to which I should like to call the attention of the House is this: that the surplus which is to be given to the Irish Government over and above the cost of the expenditure at the time of the passing of the Act is increased by £700,000. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can quarrel with that statement.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What statement?
  Mr. CASSEL: I was saying that the surplus which is to be given to the Irish Parliament over and above the net cost of the expenditure at the time of She passing of the Act is increased by £700,000. I think that accurately represents the situation.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Part of that money is for Reserved Services.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman does not follow my point. My point is that the Irish Parliament is to have £700,000 additional money over and above the £500,000, with which it can do what it
  1992
  likes. As we have not the Finance Bill, I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I correctly represent the situation. My interpretation of the situation is this: that £700,000 additional free money will be given to the Irish Parliament to do with what it likes over and above the £500,000 provided under the original Act. It is, to be strictly accurate, £697,900, but I was putting it in round figures. That means this: That the free surplus is increased at the commencement by 140 per cent., and if you take the diminished surplus, that is, the surplus ultimately diminished, the £200,000, that is increased by 350 per cent. So that you have ultimately the free surplus to the Irish Parliament increased by 350 per cent. A more complete transformation—
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Gentleman opposite says "Hear, hear." I am now trying to establish the fact—whether it be a good or a bad thing—that the financial proposals of this Bill have been completely transformed, and that we are dealing with an entirely different proposal to those which we were—
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The hon. and learned Member forgets that Ireland will have to pay an additional £400,000.
  Mr. CASSEL: I am coming to that presently. I am not dealing with the fact that they will have to pay an additional £400,000. I am right in saying that they will have an additional free surplus, to do with whatever they like, of £700,000 over and above the original estimate. With that free surplus they can do whatever they like. They can apply it, if they wish, to reducing the Income Tax in Ireland. There is nothing whatever to prevent them doing that. This is money paid out of the British Treasury, and subscribed by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom as a whole. After the passage of the Bill they may apply the whole of that £700,000 in reducing the Income Tax. The Income Tax works at exactly £1,400,000, so that the £700,000 would be sufficient to allow the Irish Parliament to reduce the Income Tax, if they so chose, by half, at the expense, to a large extent, of the British taxpayer, and the British taxpayer could actually be called upon to pay more money in order that the taxation of the Irish taxpayer might be reduced. That is a monstrous provision; that so large an additional sum should be placed at the

  1993
  disposal of the Irish Parliament without control whatever on the part of the British Treasury, or on the part of the British taxpayer, when the larger part of the money is coming solely out of the pockets of the British taxpayer. So far as the £300,000 is concerned, it is money coming solely out of the pocket of the British taxpayer.
  There is a more important point than that. These proposals cannot be carried out without amending the proposals of the Home Rule Bill. That, I think, is quite clear on an interpretation of that Bill, and on this very Financial Resolution, because the Bill provides, in Section 14, what is to be paid into the Irish Exchequer—
  "is a sum to be determined by the Joint Exchequer Board which represents the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom at the time of the passing of this Act—"
  At the time of the passing of this Act—I would call attention to those words!—
  "of the Irish services and in addition the sum of £500,000."
  So that what the Joint Exchequer Board have to do under this Bill, if it passes in its present form, is to determine the cost of the Irish services at the time of the passing of the Act. The only date they can look to is the time of the passing of the Act. They can only look to the past. They cannot look to any future Grants which Parliament may intend to make. They will not be able under the provisions of this Bill to give Ireland anything more than the £500,000. You say that you are going to try by the Finance Bill to give an instruction to the Exchequer Board contrary to the provisions of the Home Rule Bill? What is that except amending the Home Rule Bill? I submit, again, that it is unfair that we ought to have to consider financial proposals without having before us, first, the amending Bill—that is, the Finance Bill. Moreover, there is this point to be dealt with: While we are proceeding under the Parliament Act, the Amending Bill will be a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, so that you are actually trying to amend the Bill which you are trying to pass through under the provisions of the Parliament Act by a Money Bill within the meaning of that Act. I submit, so far as we know the provisions of the Finance Bill at present, and the right hon. Gentleman told us he has given it in substance, it is perfectly plain that the Finance Bill, if it
  1994
  passes at all, will be a Bill to amend the Home Rule Bill.
  I pass from that to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway—that is, that Ireland is taxed under the provisions of the Budget to supply additional taxation. That I quite agree with, but their taxation is only estimated to provide £430,000. What possible justification, therefore, is there for giving that free Grant of £700,000—for giving that additional Grant for all time? It means taking £270,000 out of the pocket of the British taxpayer and simply handing it over to the Irish Exchequer, or the Irish Government, to do with what they like, without any sort of control. How this £430,000 is estimated I do not know. That will be one of the insoluble problems which the Joint Exchequer Board will try to make out—to determine what part of the Super-tax is attributable to Ireland. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman some questions upon this matter he gave me answers that showed that so far as he himself was concerned, he did not seem to have the slightest idea how that process was to be accomplished. In addition to that, I would like to point out that the cost of the Reserved Services has increased enormously. These Reserved Services Ireland get the benefit of. Why should not part of that additional taxation more properly go to meet the additional cost of these Reserved Services? As the President of the Local Government Board quoted a passage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show that the proceeds of any additional taxation would have to go as an equivalent Grant to Ireland, I might remind him of another quotation from the Chancellor—I think in the same volume—where the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Take another alternative. The deficit now is £2,000,000. Supposing new taxation is imposed, and Ireland's share of that new taxation is £500,000, it is true Britain gets £500,000 a year from Ireland she was not getting before, but, after all, it only reduces the deficit."
  So that if it were for the benefit of the United Kingdom, it would only reduce the deficit which Ireland owed. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that would be a perfectly proper method of dealing with it. I would point out that this Grant of £700,000 is only postponing the period when Ireland will make any contribution to the Army or Navy, or any Imperial expenditure. The fact that more money is given to Ireland will delay the day when she ever makes any contribution to the

  1995
  Imperial services of this country. I cannot imagine any system of finance which can be more absurd than that—that the very fact that "more money is going to Ireland should prevent her from being liable to contribute to Imperial finance. So far as the question of the ratepayer is concerned, that matter has never really been investigated at all. The Local Taxation Committee has not yet dealt with Ireland or Scotland. There, is no means whatever of judging what is fair to give to Ireland, having regard to the burdens falling upon the ratepayers there. The ratepayers are in a privileged position, because they cannot be called upon to make any contribution at all for education or for the police, except so far as the Dublin Metropolitan Police are concerned. In London these two charges alone form an item of 2s. 9½d. in the £, an item which the Irish ratepayer is entirely free from.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They do not get anything for education or the police.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman say they are not getting anything, and that is quite true. But in every Grant you make to them you have to take into account the fact that they have to pay nothing for education and for the police. The question has never been considered by the Local Taxation Committee of what the proper share of Ireland is. The Government is rushing in haste to deal with this question because they are really not so much concerned with the English ratepayer as with the making of additional Grants for the relief of Irish finance. That is the real reason why this matter is being dealt with in such a way, in such a hurry, that the House of Commons has really no fair opportunity of judging the merits of the question. The British taxpayer is to be called upon to pay to the Irish Parilament, before the Irish Parliament has ever been brought into existence, and before we know that the Irish Parliament will ever be brought into existence. Upon that I am pleased to note that the right hon. Gentleman has received a memorial from various hon. Members on his own side, the purport of which was stated in the "Daily News." The signatories consider—
  "that the Finance Bill of the year should deal with the annual finance, and that purposes for which new expenditure is required should first be sanctioned by legislation. Extra revenue should nut be raised until that has been done."
  1996
  Here the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to raise revenue from the British taxpayer even before the Irish Parliament has been brought into existence, and before we know whether there will be an Irish Parliament. The memorialists go on to say:—
  "There is growing up a feeling in the Liberal party, if there in any readjustment this year, the purposes to which increased revenue should be devoted is the remission this year of the Sugar Duty. Next year, in our view, it may be too late.
  So that I submit it is unreasonable that the British taxpayers should be called upon to find money for the purposes of this Bill, when we do not know whether the Bill will ever pass into law, and many of us on this side of the House believe it never will pass into law. Now this change in the financial situation is an object lesson to prove that all advantages which were held out to Great Britain as the result of Home Rule finance are wholly illusory, and that all the objections-taken to it are real. What were the advantages held out? One of the main advantages held out—in fact, I think the main advantage—was that we should cut our loss. The Foreign Secretary, I think stated that we would not be justified in paying money over without having control unless we did limit our loss. Speaking on the 2nd May, 1912, he said:—
  "We propose to put a definite limit to our loss, and in putting a definite limit to it we are told upon the other side of the House we ought not to go on incurring that loss at all unless we also retain control of her affairs. If we were not putting a limit to the loss I should agree, but we are putting a limit to that loss."—[OFFICAL. REPORT. 2nd May. 1912, col. 2095 Vol. XXXVII.]
  So that the only justification for parting with control is that we were putting a limit to the loss. How are we putting a limit to that loss? By increasing the deficit, by paying over £700,000, which is £300,000 in excess of the limit we are receiving. Then we are told we would be putting an end to and relieved of the necessity of discussing Irish finance. I venture to say that the discussion when this Bill passes, if it does, will be all the more bitter, and that it will be the duty of English representatives to scrutinise more closely than ever the Grants made to Ireland after she has an Irish Parliament, because Irish Members ought to bear in mind that any Grant that will be considered, and that will come into opera-tin after the Home Rule Bill is passed into law, will stand upon an entirely different footing, because the control by the Imperial Treasury will be gone after

  1997
  the money is parted with. Another advantage held out to us was that in future Irish expenditure and the amount of the Grants to be made to Ireland were not to depend upon the standard of expenditure in England. Here the amount of the Grant depends entirely, not upon the needs of Ireland, but upon the amount which you would think fit to grant to English local authorities in relief of rates, and depends simply upon that.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: No, no. We are getting nothing for education, and nothing for police, because there are no such Grants in Ireland.
  Mr. CASSEL: That is quite true. But really what you do get is a certain proportion of the money which does not depend upon the needs of Ireland, but upon the standard set up by England, and upon a standard based on the amount granted to English local authorities. All the objections to this form of finance are proved to be real, because we see how unjust it is to Ireland on the one hand and how unjust it is to Great Britain on the other. It is unjust to Ireland, because in future she will be taxed without adequate representation, and it is a gross injustice to Irish taxpayers that they should be called upon to pay Income Tax when they are deliberately under-represented in the House of Commons; and, on the other hand, it is grossly unjust to the British taxpayer that he should be called upon to submit to forty-two Irish Members to decide in regard to money which he finds, and to which the Irish taxpayer contributes nothing, and which is no concern of the Irish people, as to how it should be expended. You have two wrongs, and the Government seems to be under the impression that two wrongs make a right. The whole foundation of this Bill is that two blacks make a white. It is unjust from the point of view of Ireland, and it is monstrously unjust from the point of view of Great Britain, and whatever may happen later I submit these financial proposals are so absurd and unreasonable that they ought to be resisted to the very last.
  Mr. CLANCY: The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down commenced his speech by complaining that sufficient opportunity had not been given for discussing this matter, and in fact he charged the Government with the intention of depriving them of any opportunity whatever. It is not my business to defend the
  1998
  Government, but judging from the speech which the hon. and learned Member has just now delivered, I do not see what he wanted additional time for at all. I listened to the speech which the hon. and learned Member has just made—it was an able speech—but we have listened to that speech in substance again and again. There was nothing new in it whatever, and if I might sum up its effect in one sentence it would be that it was an appeal to what is called "the pocket of the British taxpayer," in order to influence his vote upon the question of self-government for Ireland. In my opinion that appeal is the meanest and shabbiest weapon in the armoury of Unionism. I have always thought it shabby and mean, especially when we consider the relations between England and Ireland in this matter of finance. When we remember the well-known facts of history—how this Parliament by their direct legislation crushed one Irish industry after the other until none remain; how it drove by acts of that kind millions of people out of the country and condemned millions of people to distress and starvation—I do think it a paltry thing and unworthy of any generous mind to haggle and to haggle over comparatively small sums now to be given to Ireland largely out of Ireland's own money. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the deficit to be made good, as he seemed to imply, by the taxpayers of Great Britain. I should like to make one or two remarks upon that subject of the deficit. In the first place, there is a deficit on the Irish account now before Home Rule is passed at all, and what I want to ask is who and what are responsible for that deficit. Why has this Parliament found Ireland unprofitable? The world, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, must know it is because of the past policy of the British Parliament in reference to Ireland. To maintain British rule in Ireland, you have had both to coerce and to bribe, and in that country, amongst those most loudly flaunting their loyalty, will be found the best paid. You have had to resort to coercion and to bribery, and that is the only alternative to Home Rule. It is always infinitely more costly to govern a country against its will than to govern a country with its consent. Having indulged in the luxury for generations of trying to govern Ireland against its will, you surely would be but adding one injustice to another if you asked Ireland now to pay all the cost of

  1999
  abandoning that policy! The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken particularly, of course, of the increase in the deficit which, as he alleged, is to be brought about by the Budget of this year. I should like to point out, in the first place, that if the Home Rule Bill passed last year the deficit, as ascertained by actual revenue and expenditure, would have been considerably less than was then estimated, and that is quite plain from the financial memorandum issued within the past few days, and it is an important and significant fact, because it clearly indicates that the time when revenue and expenditure balance, and the financial relations between the two countries will be revised, cannot be so far off as has been hitherto supposed. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to object to this new Grant. Will he tell us what his ground of complaint is—will he tell us plainly and boldly that we are not entitled to it?
  Mr. CASSEL: My objection is to paying such a large amount of money out of the British Exchequer without any control whatever by the British taxpayer.
  Mr. CLANCY: He objects to this Grant, I take it, in the first place, being made at all. I want to know will the hon. and learned Member say plainly and boldly that we are not entitled to it and ought not to get it? Is it his case that we should be taxed, and get no benefits from taxation; or, perhaps, the hon. and learned Gentleman would go as far as some of us would go, and say that Ireland should not be taxed for these additional Grants? But I do not think he will go so far as that, but will he assert that Ireland should contribute to additional taxation, but should not get any benefit at all?
  Mr. CASSEL: The amount of the additional taxation is very much less than the amount to be paid over, and I object to British taxpayers' money being paid over if the British taxpayer is to have no control whatever.
  Mr. CLANCY: That is rather evading the question. The question I put is this: We are to be subjected to additional taxation, and although we are to pay some of the money from these new Grants, we are not to get any of the Grants, forsooth, because we are going to have control of that money ourselves!
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. and learned Member misunderstood me. My point is
  2000
  that the amount of the Grants is very much larger than the estimated produce of the additional taxation.
  Mr. CLANCY: What is that to the point? I wonder, if the hon. and learned Member had been here in the Parliaments of the past and found the result of the system of taxation as indulged in then was that Ireland was losing two millions to three millions a year, would he have risen in his place and objected to that result? He would not. He wants always to be on the winning side, and to have the benefits of taxation, no matter what the system of taxation is so long as Ireland pays for it. It seems to me that if he does not go to the length I say he does go, he has no case at all. The hon. and learned Member seems to be a fair-minded man, and I should like to convince him if I can. The policy of both sides of the House and both parties in the past has been one of indiscriminate taxation on the one hand, and the making of equivalent Grants to Ireland on the other. That was the policy of Mr. Goschen twenty-seven or twenty-eight years ago, and it was he who, as a Unionist Minister, actually fixed the very proportions of the Grant which it is now proposed should be made to the three countries at 80, 11, and 9. The same course was followed in the case of the Agricultural Grants in the year 1898 by the Unionist Administration of that time, and later on Mr. Wyndham, in the case of the Irish Development Grant, fixed another proportion, but the principle of equivalent Grants still prevailed. This principle was a necessary consequence of the system and of the principle of indiscriminate taxation. Otherwise you would have been openly, directly, and flagrantly taxing Ireland for the benefit of Great Britain alone. And now, forsooth, the principle of equivalent Grants is objected to on the flimsy, and even the fraudulent, pretext that we are obtaining autonomy in respect of Irish internal affairs! No doubt on the platforms of this country the false allegation will be made again and again that, although we are taxed indiscriminately with Great Britain, the British taxpayer is' unfairly mulcted. That contention will not hold water. The practice by which we now benefit is the usual practice, and practically the only difference, so far as Ireland is concerned, between the policy now pursued, or proposed to be pursued, in the present Budget and that of most other Budgets in the past, is that almost for the first

  2001
  time the additional taxation to be imposed will necessarily yield less in proportion in Ireland than in Great Britain. I do not myself bewail this, nor do I think British representatives ought to bewail it, because it will by no means balance the injury inflicted upon Ireland by the indiscriminate taxation on articles of consumption used in Ireland more generally than in England, which was the policy of the past.
  It is a very sorry spectacle, I submit, to witness a politician like the hon. and learned Member looking complacently back to the time when the fiscal arrangements were such as year after year to render absolutely certain—for three-quarters of a century the thing was done—that Ireland should contribute £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 in excess of her fair proportion of taxation, and now protesting, though the principle of indiscriminate taxation is still observed, against its working in our favour. With all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think his speech contains much that need be answered. There was, however, one remark which I should like to notice. He said that the additional Grant to be given to Ireland might be used by the Irish Parliament to reduce the Income Tax. Let us suppose that the Irish Parliament reduced the Income Tax in Ireland by twopence, threepence or fourpence. I wonder how long the British Parliament would remain without noticing the fact, and acting so as to raise the taxation to the old point, especially if the British Parliament consisted of a majority of Members like the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). I do not think the Irish Parliament, bad as it may be in the imagination of the hon. and learned Member, will consist of such downright fools. Like nearly all the other arguments I have heard on this matter, that is an argument against the principle of Home Rule at all. The whole Unionist case is based on the assumption that Ireland consists mostly of fools, and partly of rogues, and that between them they will play ducks and drakes with the national moral and intellectual interests of their country.
  I have a criticism to make upon the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and learned Member said we are getting an enormous additional Grant, but I say that we are not getting our full share. The Grants for England and Wales are proposed to be given in aid of the rates, and because they are rate-aiding Grants here, it is assumed that the equivalent
  2002
  Grants to Ireland should also be given in aid of the rates and that alone. I absolutely deny the justice of such a proposition, and it can only be justified if the circumstances of the two countries were the same, and they are not the same. If that principle were admitted and acted upon by Government after Government, we might never get an equivalent Grant. Grants might be given to England for objects which do not exist in Ireland at all, and if that were done, and Grants were refused to Ireland because those objects did not exist in Ireland, then would anyone say that the transaction was honest and fair? I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, and I hardly think he would answer that question in the affirmative. Taking, for the sake of argument, and that only the Goschen proportions as being just, Ireland ought to get for her own urgent needs, whatever they may be, one-ninth of the whole sum to be given. I have good authority for this proposition, and it is an authority which the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues will, I am sure, respect. Mr. Wyndham proposed to Parliament the expenditure of a certain sum of money for the development of Ireland as a consequence of the Education Grant of £1,400,000 a year to England. In 1902 the Education Grant was made, and in the following year Mr. Wyndham introduced his Trish Development Fund Bill, and in proposing the adoption of that Bill, which set aside an equivalent Grant of £185,000 for Ireland, he said—and I commend this to the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues:—
  "Last year the House authorised the expenditure of nearly £1,400,000 a year for the purposes of education in England. We hold that this Grant is a due set-off to that, and that it belongs to Ireland in equity quite as much as the Irish Church Surplus Fund belongs to Ireland. May I say to hon. Members who have not addressed themselves very closely to this question that we hold that, the system of equal individual taxation must be maintained, but that being the case when a large sum is allocated to exclusively English objects, it has always been the practice of the House of Commons, for which there are several precedents in recent years, to allocate an equivalent Grant to Ireland and Scotland."
  This is an admission that the objects of the Grant need not be the same in Great Britain and in Ireland, and the Bill which Mr. Wyndham carried through enabled the greater part of that Grant of £185,000 a year, which was the equivalent of the Education Grant to England, to be devoted, not to education, but to land purchase. This brings me to the complaint I have to make on the score of

  2003
  the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) referred to this matter in his speech a week ago, and he pointed out that there were no Grants to be made in respect of education (except as regards new services) and police. The Grants were refused in respect of those two services on the ground that we made no contributions out of the rates in aid of either of those services. That is not strictly true as regards the police, and I really think that the facts of the case cannot have been present to the mind of Ministers when they came to their decision. The Dublin Metropolitan Police costs a very large sum. They cost the citizens of Dublin, between what they have to pay out of the rates and in fines paid by the inhabitants of the districts and out of local licences, about £55,000 a year. The principal source of the payment is an 8d. rate, and that is an increasing rate. It is 8d. in the £ on the valuation, and the valuation is increasing year by year because the city is growing, and the consequence is that there is an ever-growing impost upon the citizens in respect of this police force. The answer of the Government formerly, and the answer of both Governments, was that we obtained out of the fund a larger proportion for the cost of police than they were paying in any other city in the United Kingdom. That is true. What is the reason? What is the explanation? It is a very simple one. Dublin is over-policed, and over-policed for Imperial purposes. I can make out a case by narrating a few figures. Dublin has a population of 390,187. Its police force numbers 1,194. Sheffield, with a larger population, of 409,000, has only a police force of 575. Manchester, with a population of 606,824, has actually less than Dublin, namely, 1,158. The city of Liverpool, with 704,000 population—
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it in order to discuss the police forces in Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, and other English towns?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member was quite in order as far as founding his argument in reply to the hon. Member for St. Pancras upon the statistics is concerned, but I do not think that he ought to give us, on an occasion like this, the statistics on which his argument is founded.
  Mr. CLANCY: Of course, I bow to your ruling, and I do so willingly. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary fully admitted the statement I am making. He admitted that Dublin was over-policed.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Some time ago.
  Mr. CLANCY: Some time ago, yes, but it is over-policed at the present time. The numbers of the police are practically the same, and the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to reduce them. The police are the same in numbers and the population is growing, and so is the cost of the police to the citizens. I would mention this, which I think is most relevant to the occasion: A rate of 8d. in the £ is levied m Dublin for the police, but the highest rate in England is 5d. in the £, and the next highest is 4d. in the £, which is levied in two or three cities. The majority of the police rates in all the rest of the English towns vary from 3½d. down to 2d. These figures show that there is good reason for complaining that a larger proportion of the cost is paid by the Dublin Metropolitan Police district than by any similar police district in England, and, therefore, as far as the Dublin Metropolitan Police is concerned, the grounds upon which the Grant was refused absolutely fail. I will not labour the question of education, but I would like to make one or two remarks upon it. It is true that we are not paying anything out of the rates in aid of education, but, supposing we paid our share out of the rates, you would still not be paying us our fair share in the way of Educational Grants. I assert, as a matter which could be proved if I were permitted to do so, that the Grants made in respect of education are not in proportion, and have never been in proportion, to the Grants made for education in England especially, and in a great many parts of Scotland. The question is not whether we pay out of the rates or not, but whether you are distributing these Grants fairly, and I assert most positively that, if we did contribute out of the rates to-morrow, in the same way that England is contributing, you would still be short in paying us our share of the Grant from the Imperial Exchequer and there is no justification for that course of conduct.
  I think it is generally forgotten that there is a very large voluntary charge upon Ireland for education. In the case of non-vested schools, I think I am right in saying

  2005
  that they have to build them without any aid from the Exchequer. They have to furnish these schools, they have to fit them up, and they have to supply the children with their utensils, books, pens, ink and paper, all of which are supplied in England out of the Imperial Grants. I rather think I am right in saying that the total amount contributed by Ireland, not out of any rates at all, but voluntarily, is a little short of £150,000 a year. These main facts, to my mind at least, justify our complaint that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not taken into acount all the circumstances of the case in denying us any equivalent Grant in respect of either education or police. I do hope, before the Budget is through, that he will take those circumstances into account and do us justice. We ask for no more than justice.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is a somewhat remarkable fact, this being the Committee of Finance on the Home Rule Bill, that we owe the Debate to St. Pancras and not to St. Patrick, and for my part I feel very much indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman who put forward the claim that some time should be allowed for the discussion of this stage of the Bill, especially having regard to the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are discussing, however, this Financial Resolution in the shadow of some new Bill that we have not seen. We do not know whether there will be a Finance Committee on this Bill, but we do know that the right hon. Gentleman, who is at the head of the Local Government Board, and who has been the chief twin-screw in this matter on behalf of the Government, has thought it necessary to allude to this forthcoming Bill and to discuss the question of the Customs upon it. I do not understand the meaning of these allusions, or his attempt to dissipate the Canadian apprehensions, or any other matter of that kind. All we know is this. There was a Cabinet Council, and the right hon. Gentleman apparently came from it quite fresh, hot or cold, as the case may be, and he thought it necessary to remind the House of the fact, and from that I augur that in return for the dismemberment of Ireland there is going to be some additional financial juggle in this forthcoming Bill. There is, however, a proverb in Ireland that it is time enough to shake hands with the devil when yon meet him, and accordingly I do not intend to say more upon that branch of the sub-
  2006
  ject, chiefly because I am afraid that, if I did, you would rise in your place and call me to order.
  6.0 P.M.
  The President of the Local Government Board referred to the allocation to be-made by some future Chancellor of the Exchequer—I presume some Gentleman sitting behind me on these benches—and I did expect some relevant criticism on the proposal of the Government from what I may call the unfledged official point of view of the half-hatched out Chancellor of the Exchequer who sees his blushing honours coming upon him. The right hon. Gentleman who has opened this matter has, I think, given a new figure to the House. I do not think we have had the figure in any previous statement made by any Minister, but I would like to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, that every figure hitherto given us as an estimate by the Government has been falsified by events. He has placed his argument before the English people in this way. He has said that the Government estimate that the new yield of the Budget is £435,000, and he suggested that we would get something like £767,000. This, as I understand it, is the figure we get to-day for the first time. It is the figure which I took from the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the hon. Member for St. Pancras draws the conclusion that Ireland will be something like £300,000 to the good. This is the estimate formed on the second Resolutions of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me give the estimate on the first Resolution, and see how far it has been justified. When I come to mention and analyse his action in regard: to Ireland over the so-called Goschen proposal, I do not hesitate to say that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the most ruthless and unsparing Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as Ireland is concerned, that has ever sat at that box. He has shown himself absolutely merciless in the past, and in the present proposal he has shown himself absolutely and relatively mean. Here is the figure we get in the Budget of 1909–10, and this figure was vouched to us in the White Paper signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, viséd by the President of the Local Government Board, countersigned by the Home Secretary, and specially countersigned by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—all the financial talent of the Government. Their solemn estimate was that

  2007
  the Budget—which raised our taxation on whisky alone by 3s. 9d.—would produce £435,000, and that was accepted by the Irish party behind me as the solemn guarantee of four Cabinet Ministers by way of treaty with Ireland—such was the expression used by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The £435,000 has swollen, in the shape of additional taxation, to £1,882,000. Does the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) think me unjust if I say that the Treasury experts who are prepared to take the votes of eighty Members under false pretences, are likely to go equally astray with regard to their present estimate? Does he think John Bull is so unpatriotic? Why they are always engaged in skinning Ireland, and you may be positively sure that the present estimate of £435,000 will soon grow and blot out the supposed Grant that is being made to us of £767,000. I do not for a moment say that I do not welcome this additional Grant. I do welcome it. On the Second Beading of the Home Rule Bill the same right hon. Gentleman, when he was attacked from the Conservative side and asked to show one single person or authority who would say that his finance was sound, replied, "We have Professor Bastable," while the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) went so far as to say that the Bill was quite fair and quite adequate. Now the figure, which was the solemn standard figure only six weeks ago, has been "Bastabled" out of existence by the new proposal. We fought the finance of this Bill two Sessions running. Last Session we refused to vote for a single one of these Financial Clauses, and u e were denounced as unpatriotic. It was said, "Why not trust a gracious, loving Government that is showering gifts on Ireland 2 "We were told that this Bill would give Ireland absolutely virginal ground for her finance, and the very same men who quoted Professor Bastable and the Member for Waterford now tell us that the Irish Parliament will do well to get £767,000 in addition. These were the Gentlemen who showed such financial genius in 1910, when four of you made a false estimate, and we get the same financial genius when, eighteen months later, you ask us to cheer for Professor Bastable and say that the Irish Parliament is justly dealt with in the proposals put forward six weeks ago.
  2008
  Here is the answer to the hon. Member for St. Pancras: If six weeks ago Ireland was getting enough, surely now we are getting £700,000 too much! Logically, I see no answer to that. There is no answer except by telling more falsehoods. [Interruption.] You could not have been telling the truth six weeks ago and be telling it now. You could not have been telling the truth on the Budget when you said it was going to produce £400,000 additional, whereas it turns out it is producing £1,800,000. Yet the same men get up with the same effrontery at that box and repeat similar statements and then attack us for refusing to believe them.
  Let us come to the Goschen proportion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer once sat below the Gangway, and I have the keenest recollection that he joined Mr. Sexton and myself in opposing the Goschen proportion as being unjust to Ireland. Yet now it is not half good enough for Ireland. What is his present plan? Let this be remembered. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin County (Mr. Clancy) has just shown that when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in 1902, gave an additional Grant for education in England, Mr. George Wyndham insisted on a similar Grant being made for Ireland. I felt deeply grateful to him. I remember the arguments advanced both publicly and privately, and I remember that when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said we were entitled to no equivalent Grant, Mr. George Wyndham retorted, "Give us your' no equivalent' Grant for Ireland "— and we got it. The other day we were entitled to an equivalent Grant under the Insurance Act. How was it that the learned Member for Dublin County and the other embryo Chancellors of the Exchequer did not press, as we are pressing now, for what Mr. George Wyndham insisted on the Tory party giving to Ireland as an equivalent in the matter of education, although Ireland at that time was paying no education rate whatever? Why did they not press that the Liberal party should give us an equivalent Grant in the matter of insurance? True, we get £100,000. Is that our proportion? Is it the Goschen proportion? Is it the Wyndham proportion? Is it any proportion except the rule-of-thumb proportion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We, having regard to the slum conditions in the towns, which the Larkin agitation proved twelve months ago, when Dublin was seething under that agitation,

  2009
  we, knowing the condition of affairs, pressed both publicly and privately that an additional Grant should be given us for housing in towns. But at the instance of these embryo Chancellors of the Exchequer we were told that we were to be content, that it was a myth—that was the phrase that was used—and they cried "Freedom before Finance," as if finance is not the breath of freedom.
  I come now to the Goschen proportion. The Wyndham proportion was an honest proportion. It was a fair proportion. The Goschen proportion was one-ninth, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that ho joined us twenty-five years ago in declaring it to be unjust to Ireland. What does he do to-day? I used the phrase "mean" just now, not as regards the right hon. Gentleman personally, but as regards the finance for which he is responsible in his proposals. What ho does is this. Mr. Goschen gave us absolutely a ninth, but the right hon. Gentleman has invented a new device for tricking Ireland in the matter. He says, "I will take the services, but I will omit those as to which Ireland contributes nothing, namely, the police and education." Does Ireland contribute nothing for education? Were we contributing nothing during the period in which £3,000,000 per annum of taxation was wrung from us? Was not that a contribution for education? Look at the Christian Brothers' schools. It is true they are not maintained out of the rates, but they are maintained out of the pockets of the people. There are, too, the Nuns' schools, and the Presentation Brothers' schools. When it is a Protestant question you quarrel with the way in which the Catholic Church drags money out of the Popish pocket, out of the pockets of the poor, down-trodden Papists in order to provide instruction according to their religion. You do not contribute to the Convent school, the Presentation Brothers' school, the Christian Brothers' school, and the Nuns' school, yet every one of these is a charge upon the population. They cost the Imperial authority nothing, because you have insisted on forcing upon us the most detestable system of education in the world, one over which we have no control. And yet because we try to give religious education at our own expense the Chancellor of the Exchequer, voicing the Nonconformist conscience, is to use that disability which this Parliament has inflicted upon us to even belittle the
  2010
  Goschen ninth, and to do it with the George Wyndham principle staring hint in the face.
  Let me deal with another point. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to make these deductions because he says we pay no charges for the police. I put aside for a moment the somewhat puny argument that Belfast and Dublin do make large local contributions to the police. I say that the force in Ireland which you have set up is not a police force at all; it is a soldiery; you maintain them as soldiers entirely out of proportion to the normal domestic social wants of the people. They are your soldiers. They are not all police. I am not saying anything disparaging of the men, I am only dealing with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Her knows what the Irish police are and have been in the past, and he knows, too, what has been our educational difficulty, and yet he fastens in this way upon this poor, miserable little island and he uses an argument which no Tory has ever used. Mr. Goschen, who was a Tory, or rather a Unionist, gave us a ninth, and that was bettered by George Wyndham, and I say it comes with ill-grace, from a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer that in regard to these two points of education and the police, he should obey the lash of the Treasury experts and make these deductions. He will write Lloyd George down as a meaner man than Goschen. That is really what it means. I feel indebted to the hon. Member for St. Pancras for the arguments he has addressed to the Committee. But some of us on these benches feel with regard to this Home. Rule Bill—"we who are about to the salute thee"—that there is going to be no Home Rule Bill for us—no Home Rule Bill for Ireland. There is some other Bill on the stocks, but what it is we are not told, although one would suppose that, before the Third Reading of this Bill, it would only be fair on the part of the Government to let us know what the Government are going to do, both on the question of finance and on the question of self-government. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Gentlemen behind me know. Are they any wiser than we are? Those of you who visit Dublin may see what is supposed to be a comic picture of the Irishman. He is engaged in driving a number of pigs to market. A fellow countryman asks him, "Is it going to Kinsale you are?" and the man in the picture says, "S-sh! The pigs think they are going to Kinsale, but they

  2011
  are really going to be shipped at Cork." I wonder if hon. Gentlemen behind me, on this 20th May, 1914, in the third year of these great Home Rule Debates, know whether they are going to be shipped or carted? I will not use this opportunity any further on that point, but I will say this, that the attitude we have taken up throughout this business has been that we have been deceived by false Estimates in two Budgets, as I believe, and in this Home Rule Bill, and that now, when a pretended attempt has been made to repair the errors we pointed out, a system has been adopted which is most unfair, without parallel, and entirely a new creation of the Treasury of England.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am really reluctant to intervene even for a few minutes between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that expression of gratitude for the cordial support his efforts have received from both sections of his Irish supporters which I am sure he is anxious to make. I wonder whether any stranger who has come into our Debate without the opportunity of consulting our Order Paper could have gathered, either from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) or the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), that we were discussing a formal stage on the third occasion of passing a Home Rule Bill which was to settle, once for all, the grievances of Ireland, which was to remove the discontent which Irishmen have sometimes expressed with our procedure, and which was to convert them into a happy, prosperous, and united people, most cordially allied to us and most eager to co-operate in all purposes of common welfare! I am not going into the past record of the Treasury calculations, or into much of the history of which the two hon. and learned Gentlemen from Ireland have spoken. I think a great part of what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) said in relation to the action of the late Mr. Wyndham was true—in fact, I know it was. Mr. Wyndham always stood out manfully for what he thought to be Ireland's rights, and even for generous treatment under the Union beyond, perhaps, her strictly rightful claims. I, for one, say now what I have said before, that while the Union prevails and there is legislation and taxation by a common Parliament for all those purposes, common or distinct, I am not one to examine too
  2012
  closely the relative balance of receipts and expenditure, and I, for one, was quite content to concur in the view put forward by Mr. Wyndham in my time, as in the time when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that when there was a Grant to this country there should be an equivalent Grant to Ireland, but that it should not be necessary for Ireland to spend that Grant of hers on the particular purposes on which we chose to spend ours, but, if she had other and more urgent needs, she might devote her money to those purposes. I only say this would become impossible if the line of argument pursued by the hon. Member for North Dublin were to prevail, because he takes the Grant for English education as a grievance because there is no equivalent Grant for Irish education. He omits to notice that the equivalent Grants for Ireland went for other Irish purposes.
  What is of more importance is the bearing of this discussion this afternoon upon the present and the future. We are nominally discussing a Home Rule Bill which, according to the Prime Minister, cannot be changed. It is owing to the persistency and ability of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) and, as he said, to the accidental presence of the Prime Minister at the moment when he rose to move his Amendment, that we are having this discussion at all. Fruitful the discussion cannot be, because if we do make any alteration in this Resolution there is no Committee stage wherein we can amend the Bill to which it refers. It is quite idle to suppose that hon. Gentlemen who have supported that Bill all through will permit an alteration to be made in the Resolution which could not lead to the amending of the Bill but must lead to its own defeat. We are, therefore, nominally going through a discussion of a Bill which is already past change, and must be passed exactly as it is in spite of anything that may be said. What we have really discovered is that the Bill which we are to pass next week for the last time in this House is to be amended a week or two afterwards in the Finance Bill, apart from any measure which the Prime Minister has undertaken to produce. What will be the result? Irish Members are dissatisfied. The hon. Member for North Dublin was as dissatisfied, although he was more plaintive and less denunciatory, as the hon. Member for North-East Cork. Irishmen are dissatisfied, and I think they have a

  2013
  right to be dissatisfied. For what has happened! The contention all along has been that we, a rich country, cut our coat according to our cloth, but we insist that Ireland should be dressed according to the measure of cloth which we have, and not according to the measure of cloth that she has; that, because we judge certain expenditure to be desirable to ourselves, we impose it on Ireland, and that, because we can well afford to pay taxes, we raise those taxes in Ireland.
  That has been the burden of the Irish grievance ever since I entered this House. That is the grievance which the Government professed they were going to remedy by means of Home Rule when they talked to their Irish supporters, and, for a long time, I thought that was really going to be the result of the Home Rule Bill. It is only when we get on to something we manage to discuss that we begin to see from the utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that would not be at all what is done. Here we have an illustration of it. I am going to talk for the moment, as the President of the Local Government Board talked, as if the whole of the new taxation we were raising was for the relief of rates or new services of a social character—rates, insurance, and the like. That is subject to a qualification to which I must come afterwards. On that footing, we in this country, the majority in the House, at any rate, think that we are rich enough to afford, and that we ought to afford, certain new taxation. Thereupon we burden Ireland with exactly the same taxation. If you do that, you do not cure the Irish grievance. It is quite true that as a result of that you give Ireland money to spend she would never have to spend otherwise; but the point of Ireland's grievance against our administration is that too much money is being spent on Ireland already, that the cost of the services is more than she can afford, and that the amount you take out of the country by taxation is more than she can afford to pay. All those grievances which you were to cure and put an end to by your Home Rule Bill you are increasing instead of diminishing by the financial proposals we are now discussing. That is the Irish point of view, or, rather, it is one part of the Irish point of view. There is added to it the complaint by Irish Members that even on this showing they do not get their fair share of the taxation which is raised. That is a question on
  2014
  which I have often differed from hon. Members below the Gangway, and I am not going to argue it now. I only say again that you have not settled your Irish grievance, and that there is no fulfilment of your promise that we were to be rid of the Irish grievance. You can see that every time you raise taxation for purposes common to the United Kingdom, you are going to have the whole Irish grievance over again, aggravated and envenomed by the fact that you will be dealing not merely with Members of a Commons House of Parliament, but with Members of another House of Parliament, who will have a power of resistance and a power of obstruction incomparably greater than have those who sit with us in this House.
  If the position is as uninviting as that from the point of view of Irish Members, is it more satisfactory from the point of view of English and Scottish Members? What is our inducement to pass Home Rule—I mean what is the inducement held out by the Government? I will not go over the whole field, although I could state that in a sentence, but it was to make peace on terms honourable and satisfactory to both parties. There is no peace; there is no agreement! Members of both sections of the Irish party declare that you are committing a fresh injustice, and both in their Dublin Parliament and so far as they are represented here, they will continue to press that view upon you, and to stir this old Irish grievance. More than that, we British Members were assured that we should not only get relief from the constant burden of Irish Bills and discussions, but we were to cut our financial loss once and for all. I take the quotation which was used by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cassel), but which puts this so well that I think it will bear reading again. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs said:
  "We propose to put a definite limit to that loss, and in putting that definite limit to it we think, on this side of the House, that we ought not to go on incurring a future loss at all unless we also retain control of Irish affairs. If we are not putting a limit to that loss I should agree, but we are putting a limit to that loss."
  What has become of the limit? The limit was fixed at £2,000,000. Ireland was actually costing, according to the Government's calculation, £1,500,000 more than she paid in taxation. She was to be endowed with a sum of £500,000 in addition, to put her on her legs. When the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) proudly declares for "freedom before finance"—
  Mr. DILLON: I never made the statement.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand it was the hon. Member for West Belfast who proudly claimed "freedom before finance." I wish he would reduce that to practice, and, as he is going to have freedom, absolve us from the necessity of paying a subsidy.
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to point out that we have not got the freedom yet.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I infer—it will be the first time, I think, that any Irish Member has said so—that if the hon. Member can get the freedom he will be glad to surrender the finance? No. Take the freedom if you can, but stick to the money anyway.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Are you ready to give it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not. That was the limit originally fixed by the Government—the limit of which the Foreign Secretary spoke—£1,500,000, to balance the expenditure of £500,000 additional, gradually diminishing to £200,000, in order to give them something to play with. Now, we have raised new taxation throughout the United Kingdom. What is to become of it? The President of the Local Government Board talks as if it were raised solely to relieve rates, or for new services. It is partly raised to pay for the Navy. Ireland being established as a separate entity, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that if a fresh call were made for the Navy Ireland would pay her share. Observe what happens. I do not know whether it is necessary to say, in consequence of this interruption of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), that we are obliged to argue this question on the footing on which the President of the Local Government Board has put it, that the Home Rule Bill is to pass into law, and then its financial provisions are to be amended by the Finance Act of the current year. Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not propose to carry out the policy which he laid down to the House? It is in the President of the Local Government Board read:—
  "Let us suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts an additional 2d. on the Income Tax to meet a great naval crisis. Not only would he be in a position to make that charge over the whole of the United Kingdom, but I think it would be his obvious duty to do so. It would be a charge which ought to be home by the whole of the United Kingdom. That is my view with regard to that question."
  I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply that he has
  2016

  satisfied that by making the charge bear upon the whole of the United Kingdom. What he does in the case of Ireland is not only to require nothing from it for this new additional naval expense, but to return to her more than she pays. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answering a speech of mine, that if the Home Rule Bill never became law, and the old system went on, the most you could do by imposing taxation, was to lessen the deficiency. But things would be so much better if the Home Rule Bill were allowed to pass. Now when you impose a tax under the Home Rule Bill you do not lessen the deficit. You increase it. The limit of £2,000,000 has vanished, and the deficit calculated by the President of the Local Government Board for the first full year of Home Rule and the new taxes is raised from the original £2,000,000 to £2,300,000.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is stronger than he has stated it. It is £2,700,000.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So I made it, but I thought I had taken the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. The deficit which was to be limited at £2,000,000 is now to be £2,700,000. This additional money is to be given to Ireland, not on specific conditions as it is doled out to local authorities, but as a free Grant to use exactly as they please. I wish we sometimes had the Ministers here who have given the pledges-to answer for the breaking of the pledges which they have given. The Foreign-Secretary said:—
  "If we were not putting a limit to the loss. I should agree that it would not be right to go on incurring that loss unless we also retained control of Irish affairs."
  There is no control retained here. There is no limit put to the loss, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets this precedent, that every time the burdens of Great Britain are increased, a heavier subsidy is to be paid to Ireland out of our taxes. I have always thought that in the attempt-to set up Home Rule you were doing an injustice to both countries, and you were making a bargain which was bad for both countries. It is quite certain it is not a bargain which meets with any gratitude from hon. Members below the Gangway, but from the point of view of the British citizen as contrasted with the Irish, you destroy by these proposals the two great inducements which you held out to them—one that a limit should be put to the financial loss which he incurred in the government of Ireland, and to the support which

  2017
  he had to give to that government, and the other the promise that as the result of your proposal we should cease to hear Irish debates or be troubled with Irish grievances.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): We have been discussing not so much the financial provisions of the Home Rule Bill as the financial provision which is made by the Finance Bill. I say that because the hon. and learned Gentleman complained that had it not been for an accident we should not have had a discussion at all of the character which we have had to-day. As a matter of fact the whole of this discussion can be taken over again on the Second Beading of the Finance Bill. It can be taken on the Clause which deals with that matter, and therefore none of those criticisms which have been levelled at the Government to-day, and which have been almost exclusively confined to the additional provision made by the Finance Bill, would be ruled out even if this Resolution were voted without any debate at all.
  Mr. CASSEL: What I said was that we should have had no opportunity of discussing it before the Third Reading of the Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, but that is quite an irrelevant observation. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that this provision is an amendment of the Home Rule Bill. The very quotation which any right hon. Friend made from a speech delivered by me on the Home Rule Bill shows that an operation of this kind were contemplated, not as an amendment of the Home Rule Bill, but as what might take place in the working of the Home Rule Bill in its relations between Irish finance and Imperial finance. Is it to be suggested that every time the Imperial Parliament raises money from Ireland for what seem to be Imperial purposes, that is necessarily an amendment of the Home Rule Bill? If it is, it shows that they are proceeding on the assumption that the Imperial Parliament is not to retain supreme control over Ireland. They are the real Separatists, and we are the real Unionists. May I point out another inconsistency in the position of hon. Members? They are proceeding upon two perfectly contradictory assumptions. First of all, when they want to make one kind of argument they proceed on the assumption that the Home Rule Bill is not passed. Not only that, but
  2018
  the hon. and learned Gentleman said that in his judgment it would never pass. When the argument suited him that was his assumption. When it suited him the assumption was directly the contrary. He assumed that the Home Rule Bill has already passed, and that we were legislating with an Irish Parliament already set up. They really cannot take both assumptions. They are perfectly inconsistent.
  The same thing applies to another argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman and to other arguments which have been advanced. First of all, he and those who are associated with him condemn us for being too liberal to Ireland. On the other hand, we have been condemned very severely from below the Gangway for not being liberal enough. I notice that hon. Members cheered both sentiments. They listened, not merely with interest, but with approval and occasionally with acclamation, to a savage denunciation by the hon. Member (Mr. W. O'Brien) because we did not give the Goschen terms, being nine-eightieths of the services which are at present borne entirely out of Imperial funds. It would have been infinitely more liberal than the present terms. Hon. Members cheered that sentiment, and they equally cheered the sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman when he denounced us for giving anything under these proposals to Ireland. Let me put this proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. He says that when we raise money, not merely for the purpose of the Navy, but also for the purposes of local taxation, as far as the first is concerned, we have a perfect right, under the principles which we lay down, to do so; but, as far as. I understand, his argument is that, so far as the last is concerned, we ought to raise out of Ireland her proportion of the naval contribution, and we should not give her anything under the second branch. Unless he says that, I really do not know quite what his argument comes to. We are raising, by means of taxation, money for two Imperial purposes. The first is the maintenance of the Navy; the second is these great local services throughout the United Kingdom. Are we to say to Ireland, "We take from you your contribution towards the Navy, but we will not give to you your contribution towards local purposes"?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I asked was why you took no contribution towards the Navy, and paid them back £300,000 more than they gave?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What we have done is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman would have done if he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer with no Home Rule Parliament set up.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then you have not cut the loss.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We hope to cut the loss in the course of the next two or three months, when the Bill has gone through. Here is a difficulty which we have to meet. We impose an Imperial tax for the purpose of meeting that deficiency. If we do that we cannot say to Ireland, "We treat you differently. We take from you a contribution towards the Navy, and we will not give you any share for the purpose of your local rates and services." That will be a gross injustice. It happens that Ireland benefits. We happen to be the richer country, and for that reason Ireland benefits to the extent of about £300,000 a year. But if you are going to raise an Imperial Tax for Imperial purposes, and levy it on Ireland as well as on the rest of the United Kingdom, you must give Ireland her fair share, and that is the principle upon which we proceed. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman challenges the position which I take up, that until Home Rule has been carried Ireland must be treated just in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me put a question to him? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that if Home Rule had been passed at the end of last Session instead of this Session he would have raised the taxation in Ireland, as he is now raising it, and would then have made no Grants in return?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should then have had a very different set of considerations presented to me. I should then have had to consider the question as it affects the local finance and the local services of Ireland, and I should then have had to consider whether it would be better to leave it to the Irish Parliament, or whether it should be dealt with by the Imperial Parliament. And when the right hon. Gentleman charges my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with not having redeemed his pledge, I say that was a pledge on the assumption that a Home Rule Parliament had been set up in Ireland.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a difference of a month or two. If this Debate had come on after, instead of before, Whitsuntide, and the Home Rule Bill had gone through the House of Commons, and had reached another place, and was then on its way to reach the Throne by the automatic procedure which is to take it there then I understand the right hon. Gentleman says it would have been proper to put the new Income Tax and the Death Duties on Ireland, and to take the money so received from Ireland as some contribution to the Army and Navy.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then what do you say?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the proposition I put. What I put is this: That if you had a Home Rule Parliament there with complete control over the services which we are subsidising by means of this Budget, then the position would have been an entirely different one. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman says it is a question of a month or two. It is very gratifying that he should take that view. I agree with him that if there were a Home Rule Parliament any Chancellor of the Exchequer standing here would have to take into account the fact that the local services had been transferred altogether from the control of this Parliament to the Parliament in Dublin, and when my right hon. Friend talked about cutting-the loss, there never was a greater argument for Home Rule than in the present position in which we find ourselves. As long as you have not got Home Rule the loss will increase, and is bound to increase. Anyone looking at the White Paper cart see that for themselves. Ever since Home Rule was rejected in 1886 the contribution of Ireland has gone steadily down, until now we are losing money on the transaction. The Budget of this year is only a continuation of the same policy, and if there were no Home Rule carried this year, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was standing here for the next four or five years, he would find exactly the same tendency—instead of getting more money out of Ireland, he would be losing steadily, until the deficiency, which is now about £2,000,000, would grow until it might be £3,000,000, or even £4,000,000. That is an inevitable tendency.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I really want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me is, how the passage of the Home Rule Bill will stop that? I invite him to take the present Budget as an example. Suppose Home Rule had been in operation, what difference would it have made in his present proposals?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already said that the difference would be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that moment would be entitled to say local services are a question for the local Parliament. He would take them into account. He would take either of the two contingencies into account. Either the Imperial Parliament could legislate for the whole of the United Kingdom and raise money for the United Kingdom—I said so on 2nd December, 1912, and the very contingency which has arisen I gave a forecast of then—you could raise money either for Imperial purposes, for the Navy, or for social reform under Imperial control.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that, does he state, on his official responsibility, that the present loss is £2,000,000 before the Budget was brought in?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before the present Budget was brought in, I think it was about £1,800,000.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: We make it £1,200,000 on your own figures.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the case. At any rate, for my present purposes, what I am pointing out is that there is a very substantial deficiency, and it is a growing deficiency, and as long as you have not got Home Rule and the whole responsibility for local services is vested in the Imperial Parliament, the result will be that that deficiency will grow.
  Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, supposing Home Rule had passed and was in force now, what would become of the extra money that has been got from Ireland? That is what we want to know.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is on the assumption that the Imperial Parliament would raise the money in Ireland. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should assume—
  Sir E. CARSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor of the Exche-
  2022
  quer contemplate the possibility of having a different Income Tax for Ireland from that for England?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Income Tax is not the only tax in the present Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  Sir E. CARSON: No, but it is one of the taxes. Part of the money comes from that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But there are other taxes which go to make up the £440,000. The right bon and learned Gentleman will have to bear that in mind. Now may I reply to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Before the right hon. Gentleman turns to that, will he be good enough to answer the question which I have put half a dozen times, and which my right hon. and learned Friend has just put? If you had Home Rule now in force, and if you raise the Income Tax 2d. as you do now, would you pay over the 2d. to the Irish Parliament or keep it for Imperial purposes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That depends entirely on the purpose to which you put it. [Laughter.] Before I had indicated what my answer was to be there was that vacant laugh from the Back Benches opposite.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is a complicated question and requires careful handling. I would ask hon. Gentlemen not to interject remarks, and to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer the question.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A question has been put to me, and I must be allowed to answer it. If the answer is ridiculous, then hon. Gentlemen opposite will be perfectly entitled to their laugh. The question put to me is this: What would happen if there were a Home Rule Parliament in being at the present moment? Would I introduce the Budget in the present form, or what would happen if the extra 2d. were put on the Income Tax in Ireland? I say that it depends on the object for which you raise it. If you are raising it for a purpose which is an Imperial one, Ireland would contribute just like the rest of the United Kingdom. That is exactly what I said. This is not a new answer. I gave exactly the same answer in 1912, when I presupposed exactly the conditions which have arisen now. The two conditions I

  2023
  presupposed then were, first of all, the raising of money for Imperial purposes, and, secondly, the raising of it for the purposes of social reform. Those are exactly the conditions of the present Budget. If you are going to raise money out of Ireland, then you must treat Ireland like the rest of the United Kingdom in the distribution of the fund. That is exactly what we are doing, and we should have done it whether the Home Rule Bill was through or whether it was not.
  May I now be permitted to answer the hon. and learned Member for Cork? The hon. and learned Member has made his usual attack on the Treasury with his usual inaccuracy, and what makes it rather worse this time is that he has repeated the inaccuracy to which his attention was before called. What is the statement he makes? He says that our forecast of revenue which we have raised from Ireland under the 1909 Budget was £438,000. As a matter of fact, we raised £1,800,000. The latter figure is grotesquely inaccurate, but let us take the £438,000. The hon. Gentleman says that that statement was made in the White Paper we issued. It was not made. The statement made in the White Paper was that in the year 1909–10 that was the amount raised, but, as he knows very well, in that year the Whisky Duty, so far from producing any tax, was a great loss. What was our forecast of the future? In the very same Paper it was £602,000, but with this note: "Exclusive of spirits, liquor licences, and Land Value Duties." Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Because the statement of £400,000 was stated by the hon. Member for Mayo to be a treaty with the Irish people signed by four Cabinet Ministers.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Member says the statement was in the White Paper. That is not true. He knows that spirits are a very substantial contribution to that amount. He suppresses that, and he is the Gentleman who talks about Ministers "telling more falsehoods."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The statement in the White Paper was backed by four Cabinet Ministers, who repeated it in Debate.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must pin the hon. and learned Member to his statement. He says that in the White Paper, which had been signed, countersigned, and sub-signed by three or four Ministers, that statement was made. It is not true.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is true.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have the White Paper in front of me, and what the White Paper says is, it would produce £600,000, without spirits, liquor licences, and Land Value Duties. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been told that before, and he deliberately repeats the statement for consumption in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman also made a very savage attack upon the contribution for the police. He said the police were practically soldiers in Ireland. The whole, point is this: The police are maintained exclusively, except the Dublin police, out of Imperial funds. He says, "Here is a sum of money for relieving the rates in respect of police and education." Not a penny comes from Ireland for the maintenance of the police, except Dublin, where there is a small contribution. How are you to contribute to the relief of rates that do not exist? The same thing applies to education. There are no education rates in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that out of this Budget Ireland is getting a surplus fund of over £300,000. May I ask would he like Ireland to be out of the taxes and out of the contribution? Would he stand up here and say, "Leave Ireland out of your Budget altogether?" He has held me up to obloquy in Ireland as the cruellest and meanest Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me tell him what the facts are with regard to Ireland. Before I came to the Exchequer—and this is a matter for denunciation by British Members—Ireland was contributing out of her revenue £1,800,000 for Imperial purposes. Now it is the other way about, and Ireland, on the contrary, is gaming about £2,000,000. That is the mean, hard, cruel Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir E. CARSON: Ireland is gaining £2,000,000?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Ireland is gaining £2,000,000 instead of contributing £1,800,000. That is the action of what the hon. and learned Member calls a hard, cruel Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would like to go back to the great Goschen

  2025
  days. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all should!"] Well, that you will never do. Let us have, he says, the great Goschen days, when Ireland was contributing £2,677,000 towards Imperial purposes. Those are the great days which he wants. Mr. Lloyd George is making a demand which gives Ireland £2,000,000. Away with it. With every Tory in the United Kingdom he would go back to the great Goschen days that took nearly £3,000,000 out of Ireland. Let him tell that story to the people of Ireland. Let there be no old age pensions; wipe them all out. That is his policy. And he backs that up by repeatedly suppressing facts which, if he has forgotten them, have been, at any rate, repeatedly brought to his memory. I bring them once more to his memory, but that will not prevent him continuing to suppress them.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to add to paragraph (c) of the Resolution, the words, "Provided that the payments in connection with all Irish services, whether reserved or not, shall not involve any charge upon the British taxpayer."
  The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech by asking the hon. Member for St. Pancras what he thought he would gain by obtaining this discussion this afternoon, and told him that he would have an opportunity of discussing the question later on. But I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that what we wanted was a discussion now, before the Third Beading of the Home Rule Bill, so that the country should know exactly what the cost of giving separation to Ireland was going to be. There will be no use in discussing this aspect upon the Finance Bill. What we want to show now is that the operation of this Resolution will be to increase largely the loss of the British taxpayer and make it greater than was anticipated a year ago. In answer to a question addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, the righthon. Gentleman defended his placing additional taxation upon Ireland on the ground that he had stated in 1912–13 that in the case of a great national emergency he must put additional taxation on Ireland for the purposes of the Army and the Navy and the Imperial Budget. My right hon. Friend pointed out that part of this new taxation was to be used for the deficit which exists in the Navy, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman what amount Ireland was going to contri-
  2026
  bute to that deficit. That was a very pertinent question which the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual ingenuity, never answered.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the question was asked, and he knows just as well as I do why he did not answer it. He did not answer it for this reason: That not a single farthing of that new taxation placed upon Ireland is going to be devoted to Imperial purposes. I quite admit that the whole of it should not go to Imperial purposes, but only that proportion that is devoted to the same purpose in England. But no proportion at all is going, and not only that, but what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do is to take £400,000 from the Irish taxpayer, and to return to them £767,000. Therefore, not only is he not going to take a single farthing for Imperial purposes, but he is going to take from the pockets of the English taxpayer £370,000, and hand it over to the Irish taxpayer. That is a plain statement of fact which I challenge him to deny. The right hon. Gentleman has been very indignant with the hon. and learned Member for Cork for denouncing as incorrect the estimate which he made of the 1909–10 Budget. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, and it does not affect my argument. The right hon. Gentleman has given many estimates of the yield of taxes which have turned out to be wrong. I do not attribute any motive to him. I merely state the fact.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been able to estimate quite accurately what every tax will produce. He takes the advice which is given to him on the point.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was not making any charge against the right hon. Gentleman. I was merely stating that on several occasions he made estimates which have turned out to be incorrect. How does he know that his estimate of a yield of £400,000 from the new taxes in Ireland is going to be realised? The taxation takes the form of Death Duties, Super-tax, and increased Income Tax. We are told that Ireland is a poor country. Is it not extremely likely that these taxes will not yield anything like as much as that? They are taxes which are put on rich people. The increase in Death Duties only affects very large estates. There is no increase on the small estates, and the same is the case with

  2027
  regard to income. Therefore, if Ireland is a poor country, and the incomes and the estates are not large, then it is quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman will not get the amount which he thinks he is going to get from large estates and large incomes, and the fact remains that we maybe giving a great deal more to Ireland even than the right hon. Gentleman estimates. This Resolution was first amended by the House of Commons. Then a new Resolution was brought in which was in different terms, and fixed the amount which was going to be allowed to Ireland at a sum to be calculated at the time of the passing of the Bill. My hon. Friend alluded to that because the right hon. Gentleman rather tried to make out that the sum is to be calculated at the date of the Bill coming into operation. But that is not in Clause 14, and neither is it in the Resolution. It is that the sum is to be a fixed sum calculated upon the expense of the administration of Ireland at the passing of the Bill. What would happen if the Bill had passed last week, had gone through this House a little earlier than was anticipated, and had become law automatically in another place? This new proposal would not have come in because it would not at the time of the passing of the Bill have been an Irish service. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to amend the finance of the Irish Home Rule Bill and to amend this Resolution, not by an alteration of the Resolution, but by another Bill to be brought in later on, which is a very dangerous precedent.
  I moved a limiting Resolution in November, 1912, which was carried. That Resolution was afterwards defeated as a whole, and a new Resolution was brought in. I moved another Amendment to that new Resolution, which, unfortunately, was not carried. It was an Amendment to this effect, that the English taxpayers should not be compelled to contribute for the disadvantage, as I think, or the advantage, as hon. Gentlemen opposite think, of losing Ireland. Now it is shown that it is absolutely necessary that some such limiting Resolution as that should be passed, and the Debate which we have had this afternoon shows still more strongly that absolute necessity. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who rather evaded a somewhat similar question by my right hon. Friend, if he can amend the Home Rule Bill by an operation in the Finance Bill of this year, to be passed
  2028
  either before the passing of the Home Rule Bill or after? What is to prevent him, should the Bill become law, further amending it in years to come, and what is to prevent the English taxpayer paying not £2,700,000, as he has to pay at the present moment, but considerably more for the privilege of losing control over Ireland? Unless an Amendment such as I propose is carried, that will be the position. The "Times." newspaper, in a leading article published in the autumn of last year, alluded to a proposal which had been made to the effect that there was nothing to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any English Government giving any further increase to Ireland that he might choose. Therefore, any idea that it will be cutting the loss, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire said, and as I believe a very large number of people in the country believe, is absolutely false. When I moved my Amendment in November, 1912, I made a quotation from a speech of which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford made at York a few days before, in which he said that Ireland would pay her way and did not want any money from England. How can he reconcile that speech with the speech made by his hon. Friend the embryo Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, and to which great weight should be attached? I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept the Amendment, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire said, what is the use of moving an Amendment now; it is perfectly useless because it could not be put in the Bill, and there is no opportunity of amending the Bill at the Committee stage. That is quite true, and that is the position into which this House is brought by the operation of the Parliament Act. In addition, there is the fact that if this Amendment were carried it would actually kill the Home Rule Bill, though I think that would not be a bad result. I should like to recall to hon. Gentlemen opposite the fact that under the Home Rule Bill of 1886 it was provided that a sum of £1,700,000 was to be contributed by Ireland to England, and that we were not to pay anything to Ireland. By the Bill of 1893 it was proposed that the whole of the Customs Duties should be transferred from Ireland to England; and a further proposal was that one-third of the gross Irish revenue, plus Ireland's share of miscellaneous revenue,

  2029
  should go to the United Kingdom. We have reversed all that. We were originally told only last year that the deficit would only be £2,000,000, and then that it was £1,500,000, and that £500,000 would put them on their legs. Now we are told that the deficit is £2,700,000, and we learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in the Finance Bill he may introduce taxation on England and take part of that taxation to make a present of it to Ireland. That is what is actually happening now; that is a clear and absolute precedent, without any restriction whatever as to the way in which the money is to be spent. Whether it is to be spent on social reform, or whatever it may be, I have never been able to find out. But it is absurd, for it is going to be handed over to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford to be spent on any objects he chooses, even on the payment of salaries to Members of the new House of Commons in Ireland. For all that the poor English taxpayer is to give up control over Ireland and has to pay—
  Mr. PIRIE: And Scotland.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Scottish and English taxpayers.
  Mr. PIRIE: That is better still.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I hope I may have the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. PIRIE: You will.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Because the Scotch do not like to pay unless there is something in return. We in England are not so particular. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cork in what he said, that Ireland has paid John Bull, and I have the unpleasant feeling that the hon. Member's hand is in my pocket at the present moment, and that he wants to take some of the new taxation out of my pocket to carry away with him when he goes to the Home Rule House of Commons in Ireland. I want the support of the hon. Member for Aberdeen.
  Mr. PIRIE: I did it before, and I shall again.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad to hear it; I have hopes of Scotland still. I hope that the country will take notice that what we are going to do is to enable the forty-two Members from Ireland to come down to this House, and if there is a squeezable Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to have forty-two votes, he will
  2030
  be able to bring in a Finance Bill to take money out of the pockets of the Scottish and English taxpayers, and offer it to the Irish Members, in order to obtain those forty-two votes which will come to what is called the Imperial House of Commons. In order to prevent that, I move the Limiting Resolution, which, I think, ought to obtain the support of everybody in this House. I believe that even a large number of hon. Members opposite do not believe in giving a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman, and in his own words, which he used just before he sat down, I say, "Away with Lloyd George finance"; and this Amendment would do away with Lloyd George finance.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet stated that he moved this Amendment in 1912, and perhaps he will recollect that, at that time I was very doubtful about its being in order, and I so expressed myself. I suppose, however, that, having allowed it then, I must give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion also.
  Sir E. CARSON: It was your own ruling, Sir, as a matter of fact.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes; but I stated that the Amendment was very like a negative of the whole question. However, I am not going to quarrel about it on the present occasion.
  Mr. LOUGH: The hon. Baronet has been encouraged to move his Amendment, remembering the success he had with one he previously moved. So far as I can see, the Amendment does not carry us one step further than if hon. Members chose to vote against the present Resolution. I hope that in the discussion of the Amendment we will not be confined very strictly to it, because so far as I can see the discussion this afternoon has been rather irrelevant to the Motion proposed from the Chair. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras discussed questions connected with the Budget and the Home Rule Bill that are not embodied in the Resolution at all, nor are they in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite.
  The CHAIRMAN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the occasion for this Debate arose out of a request which had been made in view of the new Budget proposals, and therefore I think I should have been very wrong if I had attempted to deprive the Committee of the opportunity to consider how this Resolution was affected by other proposals

  2031
  which had already been announced to the House. That is why I allowed the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct when he says that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet, being practically a negative, does not limit the discussion.
  Mr. LOUGH: I hope you do not assume, Sir, that I am making any reflection on your ruling earlier in the day as to the general Debate. I only say that it is a pity that the discussion took the broad range which it did. This question has already been discussed, and after the lapse of a year a great deal has come to light, and the scheme is a great deal better today than when it was originally proposed. The White Paper which has been circulated begins by telling the effect of what has transpired since our last discussion. And what is the result? The Paper shows that the expenditure of Ireland has been £200,000 less than was estimated, and the revenue from Ireland has been about £220,000, so that under the Bill we are about half a million better off than was estimated when we were discussing the matter a year ago. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras entered upon the somewhat discursive discussion, but he knew the facts, and did not refer to the White Paper. The White Paper so far from justifying the hon. Baronet in moving the Amendment, shows that the proposals which this House assented to a year ago were watertight proposals, and, as a matter of fact, the charge upon the Exchequer has proved to be half a million less than was anticipated a year ago. Some large figures have been given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I think they want a little justification.
  When I look at the White Paper I see that the Estimate of the Irish deficit for last year was 1.8 million pounds, and the next statement is that the actual deficit is only 1.2 million pounds. It proves—and it is a remarkable fact—that the revenue of Ireland is increasing very fast. The hon. Member for Cork and others who severely criticise everything connected with the Budget, take the view that this proves that the burdens pressing on Ireland are very heavy. Undoubtedly they are, and they are always increasing, while we have got to bear in mind that the population is diminishing. What is the best way of getting out of the difficulty? Surely the
  2032
  best way is to adopt the financial proposals of the Home Rule Bill and give more control over these affairs to Irishmen themselves! With regard to the provisions in the Bill, I submit that once this measure is passed into law difficulties will be got over in Ireland, and she will get a fuller measure of financial control than at present. The facts of the past year show that such a result may be nearer than the sceptics who sit opposite think; and it is only by looking forward in a hopeful spirit—a spirit which is fully justified by the information disclosed in this White Paper—that we will see our way through these financial difficulties, which undoubtedly do press more and more severely on Ireland. What are the difficulties? The chief and great difficulty is that of a rich commercial country making constant demands on a rich exchequer, and spreading the burden over a poor agricultural island—while the population of this island is increasing in wealth, in number, and the population of the other is steadily diminishing. The hon. and learned Member for Cork denounced these proposals, but he did not make any constructive proposals in their place. He talked about the growing burdens, but he did not tell us what to do with regard to them. We all rejoice on this side of the House that we have brought before us a measure, the examination of which shows that its tendencies are good, that the thing has worked out right, and that we may hope that in future years Ireland will be in a still better position.
  In this White Paper there is a very interesting comparison between the revenue as collected in Ireland and the revenue actually contributed. I would direct the attention of the Committee to one figure in that Estimate. It states that the Excise collected in Ireland amounts to 5.8 millions, whereas the Excise actually contributed by Ireland is only 3.4 millions, so that Ireland appears to contribute 2.4 millions more than she does. That disposes largely of one of the great fictions spread about amongst those who do not understand the matter with regard to Belfast. The figures of Excise and Customs which are collected in Belfast are quoted as proof of the great wealth of the community which lives there, and of the poverty of the rest of Ireland. The fact is that a great deal of the Excise Duty is paid in Belfast by the British people on whisky, and some of it of indifferent quality, which is afterwards sent to Great

  2033
  Britain, and that is the reason why those figures show an excess of 2.4 millions more than Ireland actually pays. A great deal of those supposed contributions of Belfast are purely fictitious. They are matters which this White Paper blows sky-high, and which shows that the burden is generally scattered fairly over Ireland. I think, on the whole, first the Government and my right hon. Friend here, and secondly, the Home Rulers may congratulate themselves very much on this Debate. We did not hear a word about the wickedness of allowing the Irish to control their own Customs, to the slight extent that is given in the Bill, and there has not been a word with regard to the provisions as to the Post Office, which would give Ireland some little control over that important branch of the public service, and probably effect great economies. None of the old hares have been started.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Give us more time.
  Mr. LOUGH: You have had four or five hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, then, you have had three or four hours. It is wonderful what you could do in a little time if you had a sensible idea with regard to the matter, but in this case hon. Gentlemen did not exactly know what to say. They digressed to the Budget and to a Finance Bill which has not been laid before the House, and they asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a Clause that has not been drawn, and they painted a dark picture of the evils that will arise, but they did not submit a single fact or figure or strengthen any of the old arguments to show that anything that has been said from the Irish Benches or from these Benches in support of the financial system of the Bill was at fault. Even the hon. Baronet who goes back on one of his ridiculous amendments did not assail the provisions or did not say that he believed in any of the old arguments against the financial provisions of the Bill which are embodied in this Resolution. They know nothing against the principle of Home Rule which is in the Bill. I would say to Gentlemen who represent the South of Ireland that the figures do not signify. It is the principle on which the Bill is fixed that signifies. The principle gives Ireland for the first time control over its own affairs, and that principle has not been assailed in this Debate, and I think that we on this side of the House can support it with greater confidence than ever.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Like the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I am afraid I have made a good many speeches about the finance of Home Rule. With regard to the statement he has just made as regards the figures on the White Paper, I think he has omitted to notice that in the previous White Paper he will find it is expressly stated there that the figures on that Paper are only estimates, and that in all probability, and, in fact, in all certainty, the ultimate figures would be found to be less than the Estimates. The Estimates are always in. excess of the ultimate figures, and that disposes of the point the right hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech. He then went on to talk of the nature of the Debate which we had today. I confess from what occurred at the end of Question Time, I think this Debate-has been a very good commentary. At the end of Question Time we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was quite unnecessary to see the Finance Bill before this Debate took place, because the whole matter had been explained in the space of about three minutes on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and that a full and complete statement had been made by the President of the Local Government Board. It took the President of the Local Government Board exactly an hour by the clock to-day to make a full and complete statement; and even now I do not think it can be described as full and complete, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to persuade us that he had made it in three minutes previously. As a matter of fact I take the view, and I say it quite frankly, that the purpose of this Debate has been, if I may say so, rather ridiculous, because we are debating something which has not got any real existence, and which we now know never will have any real existence. We are debating the financial provisions as contained in the Government of Ireland-Bill, and we now know, whatever happens, that that is not going to be the finance which, even if the Government have their way, is ultimately going to be enacted.
  It is going to be amended, we now know, in the first place, by the Finance Bill, and, whatever else happens, the right horn Gentleman has said himself to-day that in effect Clause 14 of the Bill is going to be amended in the forthcoming Finance Bill. Not only that, but the Prime Minister said that there is in the contemplation of the minds of the Government an amending

  2035
  Bill which is to deal with some phase of the question of Ulster, and which therefore inferentially must necessarily deal with the finance of this present Government of Ireland Bill, and which also, if we infer correctly from what the right hon. Gentleman said, is going to have something to do with regard to the Customs provision and possibly with regard to the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) was very anxious that some of us should say something about the Customs.
  Mr. LOUGH: Not anxious.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have only this to say. Since our recent Debates we have had the opportunity, which was denied us before until it was too late, of seeing the evidence upon which the Government secret Advisory Committee based their report. What do we find when we get that evidence on this very point of separate Customs? We find that the Government's own Under-Secretary (Sir James Dougherty) was called in to advise on the financial points, and that he said in the most explicit terms that he was totally unable to imagine a Government ever proposing to set up a separate Customs House for England and Ireland. That is one gleam of light upon the subject of a Customs House to which I think the right hon. Gentleman might well direct his attention. With regard to the new taxes and the new Grants, it is now plain for the first time, because it certainly was not plain from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1912, that so far as England is concerned there really is no cutting of the loss under this Bill under your proposals. Whatever else you are going to do, you are not going to cut the loss, but you are setting an upward limit which will always be elastic, and in an upward direction as long as you are increasing your expenditure on social services in Great Britain. Then you turn round and say, that "in Ireland you are going to get more money and more Grants." I say to the right hon. Gentleman and of those of my hon. Friends who take that view that even from the Irish point of view it is a thoroughly vicious system, because, do not forget, we are to have this increased taxation levied upon Ireland.
  It is true there are to be repayments, but that is not a very satisfactory system to adopt. It is feeding the pig with bits of its own tail, and it does not help the
  2036
  pig to give it something extra in addition, and ultimately it must end in disaster to the pig. The taxes then are drawn from one class of persons in Ireland, but the repayments are made to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what security is there that they will ever reach the class from whom the money was originally drawn. I am perfectly certain they will not, and therefore I say you are doing a great injustice in that respect to the Irish taxpayer. I now come to the Irish ratepayer and the new Grants. No conditions, says the right hon. Gentleman, are to be attached to those new Grants. They are to be entirely at the will and disposition of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer. I now ask him a question which I ventured to ask in an interruption a little earlier. You are going to take away from the province of Ulster Grants at present given to that province in relief of local taxation. What security has the province of Ulster got that it will get adequate repayment, or any repayment at all, out of the money which you give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? There is no security. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Your security is your confidence in the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer," but I am sorry to say that is in our case a minus quantity. There is a good deal more which one might say, and there will probably be an opportunity of saying it on the Finance Bill.
  I think there will be a great deal of surprise among many classes in Ireland at the statements which have been made on the part of the Government in to-day's Debate. I think, for instance, that the teaching profession of Ireland will be very much astonished to know that the £112,500 which is supposed to be earmarked for education is not so earmarked for education at all, but that it is going to be given to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that not a brass halfpenny need be given for educational purposes in Ireland unless the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer so wills. That will be a very unpleasant surprise to many of the teaching community in Ireland. I only wish we had a little more time, but I think, so far as the Debate has gone, it has elicited some curious and novel facts, even after this lapse of time and of all these Debates. The only moral which I draw is this: That there is no finality in your finance, that there never will be or can be under the provisions of this Bill any of that finality in finance

  2037
  which was the chief justification, if not your sole justification, for the original introduction of your proposals.
  Mr. NEWMAN: There is a story going round Dublin that a well-known Irishman, when asked if he was going to be the first Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, "No, I am not, because the first Chancellor will certainly be assassinated; though," he added, "I may be Chancellor later on." I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) is going to be the first Chancellor, and if the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) will take his place. We do know this, however, that for many months before there is an Irish Exchequer at all, there is going to be a sort of locum tenens for the Irish Chancellor in the person of the Chief Secretary, who was going to act during the interregnum through the President of the Local Government Board. For the past two years we have had an imaginary balance-sheet of the Irish Exchequer drawn up, and each time we have had a surplus of £500,000, which is the wedding gift from England to her dutiful loving daughter, Ireland, on that daughter setting up housekeeping for herself. Take this imaginary balance-sheet. On the expenditure side is the payment to the local taxation account of £1,500,000. I am glad to have ascertained from the President of the Local Government Board to-day that this is a stereotyped sum. We have been told that to that sum will be added a further stereotyped sum of about £700,000. Therefore, instead of the comparatively exiguous wedding gift of £500,000, we have an additional undiminishing gift of £700,000, making a total of £1,200,000 to carry on with. I am an Irishman, and if the locum tenens Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to throw into the lap of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford this extra sum of money, I am not going to look that gift-horse in the mouth. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell me honestly that this money is really coming to the relief of the Irish Super-tax payer and the Irish payer of Estate Duties, I certainly am not going into the Lobby against it.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us on a former occasion that there was one thing even more important than Home Rule, and that was the question of Irish land purchase. Here is his chance. There he sits, the last of his line, the last Irish Chief Secretary. Let him go out in full glory,
  2038
  and hand down his name in Irish history for evermore. Let him with this money which he has obtained from the Imperial Exchequer finish up Irish land purchase. With half £700,000, he could easily finish the finance of that transaction. I know what will be said. Hon. Members opposite will say that if he did that he would merely be putting so much money into the pockets of Irish landlords, putting up the price of land, and so forth. But we, the payers of Irish Super-tax and so on, contribute £400,000 to this sum; therefore, if this money is used to finish up the finance of Irish land purchase, we shall largely be paying it ourselves. I appeal to the Chief Secretary not to waste the money. Here he has a windfall from the English Chancellor of the Exchequer—a windfall such as no Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will ever get again. Let him seize the opportunity. He has got the money; let him finish up land purchase and do the thing that Ireland wants next to Home Rule. If he will do that I will gladly support him in the Lobby in a few minutes.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) seems to accept as gospel all the figures given from the Treasury Bench. He is quite satisfied that we are going to pay £450,000 under this Budget and get £769,000. It is exceedingly probable that we may get £769,000, but I do not believe one word of the story about the £450,000.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Nor do I.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am glad to hear it. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is quite satisfied that England is going to be badly "had" by the financial proposal which has been explained to-night. He says that the taxes which come under the new Budget are to arise from Death Duties and Super-tax; that those taxes affect rich men; that Ireland is a poor country; that therefore the strong probability is that the estimate of £450,000 will be falsified; and that instead of losing £200,000 or £300,000, as the President of the Local Government Board estimates, England will lose a much larger sum. I agree with the hon. Baronet in his profound distrust of tine Estimates. The Estimates will be wrong, but not in the way that he anticipates. I can give a convincing ground for that belief. The Supertax was proposed in the Budget 1909–10, and in a White Paper issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was an

  2039
  estimate of what the Super-tax would yield in Ireland. That estimate put the yield, when it had reached its ultimate extent, at £60,000. The yield for the year before last was £120,000. We have not the figure for last year, but it was certainly more. Accordingly, when the Treasury officials make an estimate on this occasion, I agree that it will probably be inaccurate, but not in the way that the hon. Baronet anticipates. That was not the only figure in the White Paper, and every other figure was similarly inaccurate. My hon. Friend was criticised because he referred to the sum of £450,000. The President of the Local Government Board repeated that figure in the House, and told us that we ought to be thankful that we were making such a good bargain. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his words are on record; they were noted by the recording angel. Therefore, the £450,000 does not exist merely in the imagination of my hon. Friend; it is in the OFFICIAL REPORT in formal statements from the Treasury Bench by several Cabinet Ministers.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: was understood to ask: Will the hon. and learned Member give the reference?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I will, with pleasure. That is not the only delusion under which hon. Members have laboured when discussing this question. They have spoken as if Ireland, by virtue of this proposal, was to get £769,000 extra to do what she likes with. Nothing of the kind. She will not get one additional penny to do what she likes with. It is quite true that there will be nothing in the Home Rule Bill compelling the Irish Parliament to dispose of this £769,000 in any particular way. There will be no mention of £769,000. There will be simply one lump transferred sum, with which no doubt the Irish Parliament will be able to do what it likes. That is the position on paper. That is in theory what the Irish Parliament will be able to do. But what are the facts? The right hon. Gentleman read out to-night the purposes for which these sums are to be allocated. He said there would be a year before the Home Rule Bill came into force, and that therefore the Finance Bill would contain a formal allocation of this money for that year. Take the sum for increasing the salaries of Post Office officials. Does anyone suppose that it will be within the power of the Irish Parliament to take
  2040
  away from the Post Office officials the money that will be formally allocated ta them by Parliament? It will be impossible. It is perfectly plain that once the House of Commons formally earmarks-these sums for one year, they will be earmarked for all time. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Irish House of Commons will act reasonably, and that they will not take advantage of the date of the Home Rule Bill to take away from the Post Office servants the money which has been allocated to them. What they will not do to the Post Office officials, the Irish Parliament will certainly not do to the various other Services for which this money will be formally ear-marked by the Finance Bill for this particular year. Therefore, the pretence that the Irish Parliament will have a single penny extra to dispose of in consequence of the Budget of this year is a pure myth: and the theory that the Irish Parliament will put its hands into the pockets of the Post Office employés, or any other branch of the Irish Service, to take out of those pockets what the English Treasury has already put into them, is the merest moonshine and nonsense. Accordingly, when we are dealing with the figures given to us by the Treasury, we are profoundly distrustful of them. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is going to be a deficit next year of £2,200,000. That, of course, includes what the hon. Member above the Gangway referred to, the £500,000. I do not believe one word of this story of a deficit of £2,200,000. In proof that my scepticism is justified, let us for one moment look at previous alleged deficits. This story of deficits begun with the Primrose Commission and on the evidence of Treasury officials. The Primrose Report told us that there would be a deficit for 1909–10 of more than £1,000,000. The fact was that there was a surplus of £163,000. The same Treasury Report, on the same evidence of Treasury officials, told us that in 1911–12 there would be a deficit of £1,500,000. The deficit was, in fact, £845,000. Last year, when one would have supposed that experience would have made those concerned a little chary of prophecy, the Treasury vouched for the figures in a White Paper of an estimated deficit for 1913–14 of £1,706,000. Four days ago the right hon. Gentleman circulated a White Paper showing that this estimate was false to the extent of no less than half a million. There was an estimated deficit

  2041
  of £1,706,000, and the actual deficit was £1,275,000. If that is the value to be attached to Treasury estimates of deficits, how can we possibly believe that there is to be a deficit next year of £2,200,000? If the Treasury were wrong last year, and the year before that, and the year before that again, generally to the extent of at least 00 per cent., how are they to be believed in this present year of grace? I do not believe one word of these stories of deficits, and I therefore tell the right hon. Gentleman that he may sleep peacefully and without any anticipation that these disasters of finance are likely to happen. One word more, and that is to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President
  of the Local Government Board if he will explain a figure to us. On the Adjournment on Monday night he gave the figure for the expenditure in Ireland arising out of the Budget at £3697,500. To-night I understand he has put it at £767,000. That is a difference of nearly £70,000. I do not understand it, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That figure includes a Grant of £65,000 for insurance, and £1,500 for collection of duties.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 305.

  Division No. 113.]

  AYES.

  [8.5 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Keswick, Henry

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Du Pre, W. Baring

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

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

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Fell, Arthur

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Barnston, Harry

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bigland, Alfred

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bird, Alfred

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Blair, Reginald

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Grant, J. A.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Boyton, James

  Greene, W. R.

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

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nield, Herbert

  Butcher, John George

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cassel, Felix

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cator, John

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cave, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worcs., E.)

  Hills, John Waller

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Chambers, J.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Edmund

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Croft, H. P.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Currie, George W.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Winterton, Earl

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Touche, George Alexander

  Wood, John (Staiybridge)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Wairond, Hon. Lionel

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Swift, Rigby

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Younger, Sir George

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes Southport)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  F. Banbury and Mr. Hewins.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Doris, William

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Adamson, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Alden, Percy

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Arnold, Sydney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  King, Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Falconer, James

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Barnes, George N.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Field, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Fiance, Gerald Ashburrer

  Lundon, Thomas

  Birreil, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Boland, John Pius

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McGhee, Richard

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Brace, William

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Brunner, John F. L.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Hackett, John

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  M'Kean, John

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hancock, John George

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hardie, J. Keir

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

  Manfield, Harry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Clough, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Clynes, John R.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Martin, Joseph

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hayward, Evan

  Meagher, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Meshan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Middlebrook, William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Millar, James Duncan

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Crooks, William

  Hewart, Gordon

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Crumley, Patrick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cullman, John

  Hinds, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Hodge, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morrell, Philip

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morison, Hector

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Muldoon, John

  De Forest, Baron

  Hudson, Walter

  Munro, Rt. Hon Robert

  Delany, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Johnson, William

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Dillon, John

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  2044

  2045

  Nuttall, Harry

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Richards, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Malley, William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Shee, James John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Webb, H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Rowlands, James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Rowntree, Arnold

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  Parry, Thomas H.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Scott, A MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Sheehy, David

  Wiles, Thomas

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

  Snowden, Philip

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Radford, George Heynes

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Tennant, Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Reddy, Michael

  Thomas, J. H.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 215.

  Division No. 114.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Clough, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Clynes, John R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Field, William

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Cotton, William Francis

  France, G. A.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Arnold Sydney

  Crooks, William

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Cullinan, John

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Glanville, Harold James

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  De Forest, Baron

  Hackett, John

  Bentham, G. J.

  Delany, William

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hancock, J. G.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Devlin, Joseph

  Harcourt, Pt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boland, John Pius

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Dillon, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Doris, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brace, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Duncan, I. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Hay ward, Evan

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hewart, Gordon

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Higham, John Sharp

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hinds, John

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Falconer, James

  Hodge, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hogge, James Myles

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Mooney, John J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rowlands, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hudson, Walter

  Morison, Hector

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  Muldoon, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Johnson, W.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Snowden, P.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Sutherland, John E.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  King, Joseph

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Thomas, J. H.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  McGhee, Richard

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Maclean, Donald

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Pratt, J. W.

  Webb, H.

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

  M'Calium, Sir John M.

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  M'Kean, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Manfield, Harry

  Reddy, Michael

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Martin, J.

  Richards, Thomas

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Middlebrook, William

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roberts, Sir J. Herbert (Denbighs)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Molloy, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Robinson, Sidney

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Cave, George

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Bird, A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Blair, Reginald

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Boyton, James

  Chambers, J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Barnston, Harry

  Butcher, John George

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Campion, W. R.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Croft, H. P.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cassel, Felix

  Currie, George W.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Cator, John

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cautley, H. S.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  2048

  2049

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Royds, Edmund

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Keswick, Henry

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Faile, Bertram Godfray

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Stanier, Beville

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Swift, Rigby

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Gordon, John. (Londonderry, South)

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, Nortir)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Grant, J. A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Mason, James (Windsor)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Gretton, John

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

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

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

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hills, John Waller

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Randles, Sir John S.

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield. Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Ordered, "That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions for the Government of Ireland,—
  To authorise the payment in each year out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into the Irish Exchequer, or to any body or person in the stead of the Irish Exchequer,—

  (a) of a fixed sum based on the cost, at the time of the passing of the said Act, of the branches of Government to be administered thereunder by the Irish Government and, in the ease of the future transfer of any other branches of Government to the Irish Government, of further sums based on the saving to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom resulting from the transfer; the
  2050
  amount of the said fixed sum and any such further sums to be determined in manner provided by the said Act, with power to make payments on account of those sums pending that determination; and

  (b) of a sum of five hundred thousand pounds, diminishing in each year after the third year of payment by the sum of fifty thousand pounds until it is reduced to the sum of two hundred thousand pounds; and

  (c) of sums equal to the proceeds of any taxes imposed by the Irish Parliament in pursuance to the powers given by the said Act, the amount of those proceeds to be determined in manner provided by the said Act:

  And to authorise such Customs Duties to be charged on articles brought into

  2051
  Great Britain from Ireland, or into Ireland from Great Britain, and such alterations of drawbacks or allowances to be made in respect of those articles as may be provided for by the said Act in cases where any Customs or Excise Duty levied in Great Britain is levied at a different rate from that at which the duty is levied in Ireland, or where any Customs or Excise Duty is levied in Great Britain and not levied in Ireland, or levied in Ireland and not levied in Great Britain:
  And to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any salaries, pensions, superannuation allowances, gratuities, or compensation, for the payment of which to or on behalf of any judges or Irish officers, or officers or constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary or of the Dublin Metropolitan police force, provision may be made in pursuance of the said Act; and also of any sums for the payment of which out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of moneys provided by Parliament, provision may be made by the said Act in the event of the failure of the Irish Government to make any such payment."

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, a Committee should be appointed to consider and report upon the anomalies that have been created in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act."
  In moving this Resolution, I should like to say in connection with the Act we fully recognise that it has been of immense benefit to a very large number of working-men and women, but we know after seven years' experience of the working of the Act that many defects have been exposed. I will endeavour to make out a case for this Motion. I will commence by giving some of the anomalies that have arisen in the administration of the Act. In the first place, I would like to refer to Clause 1, Sub-section (b) of the Act of 1906. There it makes provision for an injured person who may have met with an accident through the neglect of his employer to recover compensation in other ways than by the Compensation Act. Sub-section (c) of the same Clause says that in case of the accident occurring through the neglect of a workman, unless he is permanently injured or killed, no compensation should be paid. I
  2052
  suggest in connection with these two Subsections that this is not strict equity between the workman and the employer. If the accident is caused through the neglect of the employer, he is not called upon by the Act to pay a higher rate of compensation for the injury inflicted upon the workman. But in the case of a workman, unless he is permanently injured, he receives no compensation whatever, and, in my opinion, the employer whose neglect causes an accident to his workman should be called upon under the provisions of the Act to pay a higher rate of compensation for that accident. As a matter of fact, I am not putting it too strong when I say that if a workman is not entitled to compensation unless he is permanently injured, the employer through whose neglect an accident is caused should be called upon to pay at least full wages to the man injured through that neglect. That is a question which the Government ought to seriously consider.
  With regard to the time taken for proceedings under the Act, whilst I recognise that, generally speaking, ample time is allowed for notice to be given, still, through certain circumstances, the injured person may not be able to give notice. Let me give a case in point. An instance was brought to my notice yesterday where a man received a slight injury. He worked for a short time afterwards, and then he was taken to the infirmary and he was treated there for a considerable time, and everybody connected with him forgot to give notice of the accident. He recovered sufficiently to work occasionally, but the disease was progressive, and eventually he was unable to work at all. When this man gave notice to his employer he was told that he was not entitled to compensation, because he had not given notice within the six months. The case has been traced back to the time when the man went into the infirmary. Some seven or eight years after the accident the doctor who attended to the case made a special note of it, in which he said that the man's condition was owing to the accident. I think, under circumstances of this kind, it ought to be sufficient notice—or satisfactory notice, at any rate—to everyone immediately concerned that, the man's condition was due to an accident that he had met with in his employment. I think, under those circumstances, that ought to be accepted as satisfactory evidence, and I hope some attention will be given to this point.

  2053
  I think the question of proving that proper notice has been given ought to be thrown upon the employer and not upon the workman. That is a grievance with a considerable number of workmen and the associations to which they belong. Another very important point from our standpoint is the question of light employment. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Government, as a lawyer, will know perfectly well that there are many complaints with regard to the question of light employment. It seems to me absolutely foolish on the part of anyone administering the Act to expect an injured workman, who may be badly crippled, to find light employment, although physically he may be well enough to obtain employment. We know perfectly well that a very large number of people in the country are always on the lookout for light employment—I refer to men who are elderly or old, or do not enjoy good health. To say to a coal-miner or a navvy that he is fit to do light employment because the doctor certifies it, and that he shall not be entitled to compensation, seems to me to make the Act to some extent ridiculous. I suggest that when a man is able to resume work at some light employment it ought to be thrown upon the employer to provide that tight employment, and if he does not do so the man should be entitled to full compensation under the Act. I will mention another anomaly in connection with the Act. Take the case of a weaver or a watchmaker, or anyone in a trade of that kind. If they happen to lose an eye they are entitled to a lump sum, or further compensation than half wages. A man who has lost an eye may be able in six months to resume his employment. The point I am making is this: Take the case of a miner as an illustration. If a miner loses an eye and he recovers sufficiently to resume employment, the only compensation he gets is in respect of the number of weeks or months that he is out of employment owing to the accident; but, if he leaves the employer for whom he is working and secures employment with someone else, and then meets with a second accident, the second employer is called upon to pay full compensation for that man's loss of sight. Provision ought to be made whereby the employer in whose service the man was when he lost his eye should either pay a lump sum for the loss of the one eye, or should be called upon to pay some part of the compensation that the second employer is at the present
  2054
  time called upon to pay. I do not know how the decision was arrived at that a man or woman should not be entitled to compensation for the loss of one eye, because no one can say that a workman is as well qualified to do his work with one eye as he is with two. If he were, every workman would have been born with one eye. The loss of an eye is a great handicap to him in his employment. Take a man on the railway. He may be working in the shunting department. He is seriously handicapped, and he may be the cause of an accident, not only to himself, but also to other people. The Government ought to do something in the direction of remedying this grievance.
  We think that labourers who are paid very low wages ought to be entitled to a higher rate of compensation if off work through an accident than is provided for in the Act. Take a labourer whose average weekly wage is 18s. or 20s. per week. Every farthing of that money is spent upon the family needs, and, if that income is reduced to 9s. or 10s. per week, it is absolutely impossible to keep the home going without applying for Poor Law relief. Under the Insurance Act he gets no sick pay for the accident, and I am sorry to say that some of the friendly societies are following the example set by that Act and are deciding not to pay sick benefit to members in receipt of compensation, so that some poor people who meet with an accident are a great deal worse off owing to the passage of the Insurance Act. I suggest that men whose wages are under £1 or 22s. per week ought to receive 75 per cent. of their wage as compensation if laid off through an accident. I want the House to imagine so far as they possibly can the difference in the lot of the labourer who meets with an accident and suddenly finds his income reduced from 20s. to 10s. per week, and the lot of those gentlemen who are complaining of having to pay Super-tax. I think the House will agree with me that there is a great deal more need for allowing higher compensation to that labourer than there is to have consideration for a man wealthy enough to be called upon to pay Super-tax. I am inclined to think, compared even with those ladies and gentlemen who have an income of £700 a year, that we ought to show more practical sympathy for the unfortunate individuals who meet with accidents and are compelled to exist upon the low amount of compensation to which I have referred.

  2055
  I would like to suggest that if a person is certified by a medical man having to administer the Factory Acts or anyone like that—a certifying surgeon or a responsible medical man—to be suffering from a disease scheduled, it ought to be sufficient to enable him to get compensation without having to take the case into the Law 'Courts. That is not so now. It may be sometimes, but not always. I want as far as I possibly can to simplify and reduce the cost of the administration of the Act, and I do say that if the man is certified to be suffering from a disease scheduled under the Act it ought to be accepted as sufficient evidence that he is entitled to compensation under the Act. When a man meets with an accident he is examined nearly always, I take it, by a doctor representing the employer or the insurance company. The doctor says, "You will be able to resume work in five, six, or seven days." At the end of that number of days the employer says, "You are able to resume employment, and therefore you are not entitled to receive compensation." The result is that the man or the men's society is compelled to take the case into Court, and it has been proved time and time again, that where the employer's doctor has said a man would be fit to resume work in a week, a fortnight, or three weeks, he has not been able to do so for three months, six months, and in some instances twelve months. They have been compelled to take the case into Court. Perhaps they had the award of the County Court judge given in the man's favour, but then the case has been taken to the Appeal Court and perhaps to the House of Lords. Means ought to be devised whereby common cases would be decided finally without having them taken time after time to the House of Lords. Before a man is refused compensation by his employer under the certificate of the employer's own doctor, someone independent of either party ought to be called in or appealed to so that compensation might be awarded to the man without having to go to Court as at the present time. There is another point, an administrative point, rather than a legislative point.
  I am informed that coal trimmers attending to their duties in the holds of ships inhale so much coal dust that they are subject to a particular disease not common to other classes of workpeople, and I suggest where such a case arises the
  2056
  disease ought to be scheduled as one for which compensation is payable. I could give scores of other anomalies, but I will only add one more. Not very long ago a fireman who was stoking boiler fires, in the course of his employment had also to-wheel away in a barrow the ashes from the fires, and, while doing so, was struck upon the head by a wooden case and was disabled for a considerable time. He went into Court, and the learned judge decided that the man at the time of the accident was not following his ordinary occupation and must, therefore, be refused compensation. In a case like that there ought to be some regulation laid down to provide that if it were a man's duty while stoking fires to wheel the ashes away, and he met with an accident while taking them away, he should be entitled to compensation without having to go to Court. That seems to me a common-sense view of the matter, and a point which ought to be made quite clear in connection with the Act. Another grievance I have to refer to has reference to the 50 per cent. compensation payable to an injured workman. We think the 50 per cent. ought to be based on the wage for a full working-week, and there ought not to be such a thing as striking an average for twelve months. If a man can show that his wages are £2 a week he should be entitled to 50 per cent. of the full week's wage, and no account should be taken of time lost owing to a holiday or bad weather, or to the employer working short time, the workman himself having no control over the circumstances. I suggest that, in connection with this and the other points I have named, the only way to get over the difficulty is to appoint a Committee to inquire into the administration of the Act.
  With regard to the examination of injured workmen, I have had complaints sent to me that when an injured person is being examined by the medical referee, a medical expert acting for his employer or for the insurance company concerned, is present at the examination. I do not think he ought to be there, but, at any rate, if it is considered necessary, then the workman also should be allowed to have his medical man present. Personally I think it would be far better to leave the medical referee to decide for himself, without allowing the presence of a medical representative, either of the employer or of the workman. I do not know whether any complaints have reached the Home Office, but one or two cases have been

  2057
  brought to my notice where the medical referee appointed by the Home Office has been interested in the company for which the man was working when he met with his accident, or where he has been a relative of the employer. It should be made quite clear that men in these positions are not really qualified to act as medical referees in compensation cases, and something should be done to prevent their being so employed. I am going to suggest that, instead of having a medical referee appointed as at present, the Government should appoint full time medical referees not dependant on a private practice for their living. If that suggestion were adopted I feel satisfied the cost of the administration of the Act would be considerably reduced, and that many law suits would be avoided. It certainly would be more satisfactory than at present. I suggest, as a remedy for the various grievances I have referred to in connection with medical examinations, the appointment by the Home Office of permanent medical referees.
  I appeal to the Government to appoint a Committee of Inquiry which may take evidence in connection with the many anomalies that have arisen in the working of the Act. There is one other point I particularly want to raise. When a case is taken into Court it often occurs that the employer for the insurance company concerned calls two medical men of high repute to give evidence to the effect that the man either is not suffering from the effects of the accident or disease, or not to the extent he suggests. The injured workman is compelled in self-defence to bring two medical men of equally high repute to state that he is suffering from the effects of the accident or disease, and is therefore entitled to compensation. Here we have the anomaly of four highly respectable gentlemen of good repute in the medical world giving evidence directly contrary to each other, and we ought to save their consciences if we possibly can. I ask the Government therefore to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to go fully into all these anomalies, grievances, and complaints that have cropped up from time to time in connection with the administration of the Act. I have purposely refrained from referring to one or two other points in connection with the mining industry, as they are to be touched upon by my colleague who is to second the Motion, but I do appeal to
  2058
  the Under-Secretary for the Home Department to carefully consider the terms of my Motion, and I feel certain he will agree that I have made out my case for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Westhoughton Division of Lancashire (Mr. Tyson Wilson). The Resolution calls the attention of this House to the many anomalies that have arisen in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and asks the Government to appoint a Committee of Inquiry with the object of reporting as to the remedial legislation necessary for removing these anomalies and for having the Act administered in the spirit in which it was passed. I think I shall carry with me the assent of hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say that the chief object of the promoters of this legislation was to secure for workmen injured in the course of their employment, compensation for the loss of earnings with a minimum of litigation and with as little delay as possible. However anxious they may have been to embody in their legislation those excellent principles, experience of administration has proved that they have failed to give effect to their intentions. No Act of Parliament of modern times has been so fruitful of litigation and delay as the Workmen's Compensation Act. As a matter of fact, the administration of that Act has provided for the legal profession a golden harvest during the whole of the seventeen years it has been in existence. That such a result should have followed the earnest efforts that were made in 1897 and 1906 to secure for injured workmen fair compensation on easy terms is, I am sure, a matter of deep regret to many Members in this House, and I believe that many hon. Members share with those on these benches the desire for fresh legislation that will remove many of the anomalies and difficulties. Legislation dealing with such a complex subject was, at least in its earlier stages, bound in the very nature of things to be of a tentative character, and subject to review from time to time as experience in administration dictated. That was clearly recognised both by the late Sir Matthew White Ridley and by Lord Gladstone in introducing their legislation. In introducing the Bill of 1807, the late Sir Matthew White Ridley said:—
  "The Government do not pretend that the Bill is complete or final."

  2059
  And Lord Gladstone, in introducing his amending Bill in 1906, said:—
  "The question with which this Bill deals has advanced by stages and will advance."
  The organised workers of the country are of opinion that sufficient experience has been gained to justify another advance being made in the direction of bringing the Workmen's compensation law into closer conformity with their ideas as to fair play and justice to the workmen, or their dependants, injured, and suffering loss of wages in any part of our industrial system. My hon. Friend has already brought before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a number of points on which, in his opinion and in the opinion of organised labour as expressed through the Trades Union Congress and other bodies, the law requires amendment. I have no intention of repeating his arguments, or of dealing at any great length with any of the particular points he has already raised. The difficulties which have revealed themselves in connection with this particular Act of Parliament are so numerous that there is no need to elaborate any one of them unduly in trying to make out a case for the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry. One of the points already briefly referred to by my hon. Friend is the difficulty which faces the injured workman when he reaches the stage when he has recovered sufficiently to be certified by the medical man to be fit for light employment. The difficulties that meet him at that particular point are of a twofold character. On the one hand, there is no onus placed by the existing law on the employer to provide the workman with that light job. As a matter of fact, the employer may not have a light job to give him, and it may be impossible for the workman to find any other employment. He will certainly have a great difficulty in finding another employer who will give him that light job. The fact, however, that the man has been certified fit for such work puts the employer in the position of being able to claim, and successfully claim very frequently, a reduction of the injured workman's compensation equal, or at least corresponding, to the wages that he would have received if he had been fortunate enough to find suitable employment. On the other hand, the employer may be able to provide him with a suitable job, but the workman's injuries may be of a permanent character. He may have been in the posi-
  2060
  tion of being able, as my hon. Friend has already instanced, of earning £2 per week prior to his accident. The job that is found for him by his employer is one that is only valued at £1, which means a difference of £1 between his earning capacity prior to his accident and after he is able to return to this light form of employment.
  The Workmen's Compensation Act, as-interpreted in Scotland—I do not know very much about the practice in England or Wales—gives to such a workman 50 per cent. of his loss, which means that he has his earning capacity permanently reduced to the extent of 10s. per week. The obvious amendment there is for the onus to be placed on the employer to provide, the workman with light work, or, if he is not able to do that, at least to continue to pay him full compensation until he is able to obtain suitable employment from somebody else, or, in the case of the employer who is able to provide his workmen with light employment, the onus should be placed on him to pay between partial compensation and wages a sum equal to the wages the workman was earning prior to his accident. We are also of the opinion that the list of scheduled diseases should be extended in a number of the occupations of this country. There are workmen at present who are suffering from diseases peculiar to the industry which they follow for which no compensation is paid them. Take an example from my own occupation—that of mining. Within recent years a considerable number of our men have suffered from heart strain. When a claim for compensation is made on this ground, the employers in a considerable number of instances, have contested the claim on the ground that the man's condition was not due to accident, but was the result of continual overstrain. If the employers' contention is right that mining under modern conditions is of such a strenuous character as to produce this heart condition, it ought to be placed on the list of scheduled diseases for which compensation is paid. That is only an example of many cases which might be given.
  Another one of the difficulties which recent administration of the Compensation Act has brought us face to face with is what is known as accidents not arising out of and in the course of the workman's employment. This is an old difficulty with a new name. In the Act of 1897 we had what was known as the serious and wilful misconduct Clause, under which a

  2061
  workman who was injured in breach of any regulations which governed the industry in which he was employed was not entitled to be paid compensation. This Clause was found to act so unfairly in many cases that it was amended in 1906, so as not to apply in cases of serious and permanent injury and fatal accidents. The ingenuity of the legal profession has again got the employer safely around the amendment which was then made, and when such a case now arises the claim of the workman is refused on the ground that such accidents do not arise out of and in the course of the workman's employment. I have a whole list of decisions in such cases. Such claims are being successfully made and justify an immediate amendment of that particular Clause of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Within recent years we have heard a great deal of discussion in this House about the difficulties of the working classes in meeting the increased cost of living on their present wages. If the difficulties of the working classes are great in meeting the increased cost of living on their present wages, and I have no doubt such is the case, what must be the position of the injured workman who has to meet the increased cost of living on 50 per cent. of his average earnings? Other countries are showing us an excellent example in this respect. A new law is about to come into operation in the State of New York, which provides for an injured workman getting two-thirds of his earnings. The German Compensation Law also provides for injured persons getting two-thirds of the earnings. This is a phase of the question which ought to be given careful consideration under any amending Bill in the near future. Also there is the question of medical referees. It is one of the most important matters for consideration in connection with the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act. If we had throughout the country properly constituted courts of medical referees, entirely independent of either the workman or the employer, I believe it would go a long way in the direction of reducing the cost of litigation and also shortening the delays that take place under existing conditions. There is also the question of certifying surgeons, and the question of the difficulties which surround the workman in regard to the registering of memorandums of agreement. There are many other matters which one could mention, but I think I have mentioned enough to justify the appointment
  2062
  of a Committee of Inquiry, which I hope the Government will give us, so that evidence can be taken on all the points that we have brought under their notice.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I am sure all who are in the House to-night and have heard the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder, are agreed that we have seldom heard such pointed and concise speeches on any subject. I congratulate both hon. Members on the way in which they have presented their ease. In view of the attitude I propose to take on behalf of the Government on this Resolution, my hon. Friends below the Gangway will agree with me that the less I say about my individual views on these particular anomalies the better, because I do not want in any way to prejudge one way or another the various matters which have been put before the House. Of course, it is common knowledge—I know it not only officially but legally from my practice at the Bar—that there are a great number of anomalies in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act, and it is very necessary to remove them in order to give more certainty, not only on behalf of the workmen, but also on behalf of the employer, so that they may know where they stand. There are one or two matters upon which, perhaps, I might be allowed to say a word. The first is the question of light employment. The Home Secretary has already been approached upon this matter by the Trade Union Congress, and although he did not agree at the time that full compensation should be paid of necessity if a man was capable of light employment, yet he said that, in his opinion, if a workman had taken all reasonable steps to obtain light employment from his old employer and other employers in the district, and if he could establish that he could not get light employment, prima facie, compensation should be paid in full. Of course, that is a step in the direction which my hon. Friends want to go. With regard to the subject of medical referees, that is an extremely difficult point. I think one of my hon. Friends said that ho anticipated the day when the anomaly of four doctors giving evidence, two on one side and two on the other, according as they are paid, would disappear. He thought there might be in the remote and distant future an Act of Parliament whereby that might be remedied, but he

  2063
  must be more sanguine than I am if he thinks that the House of Commons will ever remove that anomaly. Another point to which attention has been called is that there ought to be full-time referees. I think we are all agreed in theory as to what ought to be. We are all socialists now, and we are most anxious to get men who would be full-time medical referees, not only because they would get accustomed to the duties, but would be able to give an absolutely impartial opinion as between employers and employed. But, as my hon. Friends know, the difficulty at present is that medical referees are appointed for different county court districts, and the first difficulty would be that the areas would have to be considerably extended, because it would be difficult to get the really best men—and that is what we want—unless you could attract them by higher salaries than you can offer for small districts. In regard to the statement as to medical referees having an interest in the cases which are brought before thorn, I would point out that, as hon. Gentlemen know, we in the circulars which are sent out guard against anything of that kind so far as we possibly can. It is obvious that a medical referee ought to have no personal interest either on the one side or the other. He ought not to be the medical man for the industrial undertaking concerned, or the medical man for a workman's club. He ought to go to the performance, of his duty with an impartial and unbiassed mind
  Mr. HODGE: Mr. Gladstone promised to appoint, as an experiment, in some of the larger districts full-time medical referees, and that has never been done.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am afraid there are many promises unfulfilled. If Mr. Gladstone made that promise I do not recall it. We know that there are other promises which have not been fulfilled. I do not see why in the very large districts it should not be possible to do something in that direction. In view of what I am about to say, that is rather an academic question. My hon. Friend's Motion is that—
  "A Committee should be appointed to consider and report upon the anomalies that have been created in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act."
  I go a little further than that, and I think I am going to give him more satisfaction
  2064
  than he asked for in this particular Motion. We think that a Committee ought to be appointed, not only to consider the administration of the Act, but to consider the operation of the Act. Of course, all who are interested in this class of cases know that a new factor has come into existence by the passing of the National Insurance Act, and just as my Friends want a State-paid service of medical referees, so there is a suggestion made on behalf of the employers in regard to compensation rights of all kinds. That is to say, instead of insuring with private companies for one class of cases, and paying contributions under the National Insurance Act for another class of cases, they suggest that there should be some organisation whereby employers could claim once for all to protect themselves against all kinds of claims—disablement, illness, accident, and so forth. I do not think it is necessary, as a matter of form, that this Motion should be amended to-night. I am accepting it on behalf of the Government, but when we come to appoint the Committee, as we shall do, we think that the Committee should not only inquire into the anomalies that have been created under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but that it should also take into account the relationship between these two Acts—the Workmen's Compensation Act and the National Insurance Act—with the view, if possible, of bringing those two matters into more harmonious relationship, one with the other. Without prejudging the matters which my hon. Friends have mentioned, I accept the Motion on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: It must be very-gratifying to everybody in every portion of the House who is interested in the administration of this Act to hear the declaration which the hon. Gentleman has just made. After the very lucid speeches made by the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion, one could not imagine the Government taking any other course than that which has been announced. I wish the hon. Gentleman could have told us when the Committee which he has promised is likely to begin its work, because this is really a matter of considerable importance. It is a pressing matter to a very large section of the community. Nobody will deny that the Workmen's Compensation Act has been the greatest boon and blessing to the working classes of this country. But in connection with the administration of the

  2065
  Act there are anomalies which ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment, in order that those whom the Legislature intended to benefit by the operation of the Act shall have the most simple and speedy method of obtaining what the Legislature intended. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion suggested that compensation for accident, if it is caused by neglect, should be paid for at a higher rate than cases where no neglect exists. I would remind him that where an accident is caused by neglect of the employer, the workman has remedies quite apart from the Workmen's Compensation Act, which enable him to recover from the employer who is in default full compensation, and not only what he has lost in respect of the injury done to him. It must be remembered, in discussing the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, that the object of the Act is to make the burden, which falls upon the shoulders of somebody when a workman is injured, be shared between the workman and the employer in equal proportions. I have had some little experience of the working of this Act, and although the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution does not quite seem to approve of the part which lawyers have had in working the Act, at any rate it will be admitted that we have gained some knowledge of it and its working. It does seem to me that there are some anomalies which ought to be removed in order that the intention of the Legislature can be carried out. One or two of these have been mentioned, but there are one or two others which I hope will be brought before the notice of the Committee whenever it meets. There are one or two anomalies which we constantly meet with in practice, and which I am sure everybody in this House who has the interests of the working classes at heart would wish to see removed. One hon. Gentleman referred to notice. It does seem to me—and I suggest it to the consideration of the Committee—that it is an absurdity that where a man has been injured in an accident, and where everybody in the works knows that he has met with an accident, it should still be necessary for him to give a notice in writing specifying the fact that he has had an accident. I hope that, without any injustice being done to employers, provision may be made for dispensing with notice where it is perfectly clear that no injury has been done to the employer by the fact that the notice has not been given in writing.
  2066
  Then there is another anomaly which everybody has met with, and which has been denounced more than once from the Bench. After all, lawyers have got to administer the law as they find it. They cannot alter the law, and what Parliament and the common law lay down as the law, judges and lawyers have to administer. It has over and over again been pointed out what a hardship can happen to a man who is injured, and who afterwards dies. He may meet with an accident and nobody be there to see what happened. He may go from his work and may make a statement to his wife, or to some other relations, quite sensibly accounting for everything that he is found to be suffering from. He may be suffering from a sprained back, and he may say, "I sprained my back in the pit to-day," or he may be suffering from a cut on the hand, and he may say to his wife when she is binding it up, "I cut my hand with a hammer," or he may say, "I knocked my hand with a hammer." Now, if that man happens to die, and the claim is made for compensation, then, according to our law, the statement which he made to these persons is not evidence, and cannot be admitted. Consequently, you have got no account of how the accident happened, because the only person who could have given an account of what really happened has gone, and the rule of law at present excludes the statement which he has made to some person he saw directly after the accident. What I suggest is this, not that the statement of the man must be accepted, and must be acted upon—I do not go quite as far as that—but I say we ought to allow the person who is going to decide the case, either the" arbitrator or the committee, or the County Court judge, to hear the statement and act upon it if he thinks right, and, if he believes the statement, then let him take it. Then we should have no more of those cases where everybody feels that an accident has happened to a man in the course of his employment, that he ought to have compensation, but you are just missing the one bit of evidence which is necessary in order to give that compensation to him.
  Another anomaly which I think might very well be removed without any injustice to anybody is somewhat of a similar character. I refer to the case of a man who is working at his employment or on his employer's premises, and an accident happens to him, and there is no evidence to

  2067
  show how the accident has happened. In that case I think that the object of the Statute would be best carried out by putting the burden upon the employer of showing that the man was not really acting within the sphere of his employment at all when the accident happened. I remember quite well the ease of a ship's cook who was on board the ship in the course of his employment. He suddenly disappears. Nobody knows what has become of him, but there is not a man who ever had anything to do with a case of that kind who would doubt the fact that the man fell overboard accidentally. But it cannot be proved. Now I say that where you have got a man in the course of his employment like that, on his employer's premises, and doing his employer's work, and an accident happens which cannot be accounted for, the onus ought to be upon those who say he is not entitled to the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act to show that he is not entitled to it, and it should not be upon the other people to show that he actually does come within the Act. Perhaps I was wrong to have intervened at all after the promise which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government, but I thought it right, as this Committee is being formed, to call his attention to these one or two matters.
  In regard to the question which the Seconder of the Resolution raised as to accidents arising out of and in course of employment, I can assure the House that there is no legal ingenuity, no ingenuity of lawyers, about it. The Act of Parliament says that in order that a man may have compensation the accident must arise in the course of his employment, and it must arise out of the employment. You will always have disputes on questions of fact, between one side which says, "I have been injured in my employment by an accident which arose out of my employment," and the other side, which says, "You have not been injured at all, but if you were injured it did not arise out of your employment, and it did not arise in the course of your employment." So long as you have got to decide matters of fact, and so long as you have a man saying, "I am injured," and you have another man saying, "You are not injured," you will have differences of opinion which will have to be decided by someone, and, I suppose, for want of someone better, it will have to be decided by
  2068
  humble people who have been trained all their lives to decide questions of that character. Some day it may be thought wise to remove these cases altogether from the sphere of the Law Courts, but I am quite certain that it would be a matter of great regret to the working classes if that happens, for they will not get more impartial justice anywhere than they have got in the administration of these Acts from every Court in the country, from the lowest to the highest, from the County Court to the House of Lords. They cannot complain that on the whole the Statute has not been favourably interpreted for them. As I have said, you will always have differences of opinion about facts. All we can do is to have fair rules of law upon which facts are to be decided, and I am glad to think that a Committee is to be appointed to inquire, and I hope inquire quickly, as to what can be done, and I hope, that after the Committee has inquired and reported, we shall have some amendment of these Acts to remove these anomalies.
  Mr. O'SHEE: I should like to refer to that part of the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Office in which he referred to the question of the appointment of medical referees. At the present moment in Ireland, as I understand on the recommendation of the Irish Insurance Commissioners, there is about to be set up a system of whole-time medical referees in connection with certification under the Insurance Act. As the House is aware we have no medical benefits at the present time under the Insurance Act in Ireland, and sickness benefit is paid not on the certificate of the panel doctor, because we have no panel doctors, but on the certificate of any doctor who may be called in to the person who is ill. Many of the doctors have refused to give certificates or to assist the operation of the Act at all. There is an agitation in Ireland for a capitation fee for certification, and they have been offered by the Insurance Commissioners a certain capitation fee, which they have declined to accept in twenty-one counties out of thirty-two. There is a panel system of certification in eleven-counties of Ireland, but, in the short experience they have had of it, it has been found to work very unsatisfactorily. I believe in those counties where this panel certification exists the number of cases has been double the number in those districts where there is no panel system of certification. The reason why I call attention

  2069
  to this point is that, seeing there is to be set up in Ireland a system of whole-time medical referees under the Insurance Act, the opportunity will be a good one to appoint them also as medical referees in connection with workmen's compensation. It would be lamentable if that opportunity were allowed to pass. The appointments under the Insurance Act have not yet been made, and it is very desirable that the attention of the Irish Government should be called to the fact that there is this opportunity of removing a grievance in Ireland from which employés and employers sometimes suffer.
  The grievance is caused by the difficulty of getting an impartial medical referee. At present they are not whole-time referees, and those who are appointed seem to have been appointed almost accidentally, and nobody knows why. It would be very desirable indeed to have independent medical referees, and the opportunity now offers itself for obtaining them. As regards the anomalies existing under the Workmen's Compensation Act, we have had the same experience in Ireland as you have had here. One of the difficulties we have in Ireland arises from the fact that decisions have been given one way in some cases and another way in other cases, as to whether an individual is a workman or a contractor. It has been decided, I think for the first time, in the Scottish Courts, that a man who breaks stones at so much per ton for the construction of roads is a workman. It has been decided by the Court of Appeal in Ireland recently, and notwithstanding the Scottish decision, that the man who carts the stones which are broken up for construction of the roads is a contractor, because he carts the stone at so much per ton, using a horse and cart. I do not know on what principle the distinction is made, unless it be that the man who carts the stone at so much per ton has to have the machinery of his horse and cart to carry the stones; it may be for that reason he is held to be a contractor and not a workman. On the other hand, it may be said that a man who breaks the stones has the machinery, which consists of his hammer, but, apparently, the Court ignore that fact in deciding that he is a workman when he breaks stones at so much per ton for the construction of roads. There is also a difficulty with regard to third party liabilities, and in this respect there is very considerable confusion in the operation of the Act. The
  2070
  hon. Member who preceded me referred to various anomalies, including that with reference to statements made by the person who has received some injury, apparently in the course of his employment, and survives for some time, and after some hours, perhaps, dies. Before his death he may have given some-account of what had happened to him to his wife or other persons, but the Court will not allow that kind of evidence to be admitted, though their is no proper account available of how the accident occurred at all. I have a case in my mind in which a man was carting timber along a country road. Apparently one of the beams fell upon him as his horse was proceeding along the road. There were other carters following, and the one who was next was brought to a stop, and found that the injured man was partly under the wheel of his own cart. It was impossible to say exactly how he got there. He had apparently been struck, but the doctor could find no evidence of injury on the side or the body to show that he had been struck. Apparently either he must have fallen off the cart when asleep, or have been struck by the beam when walking beside his horse. He was found about 9 o'clock on a winter night, and he died the-following morning at 3 o'clock. On his having recovered consciousness he had given an account of how the accident happened. When the case for compensation came before the judge he decided that the evidence could not be given as to what the deceased had said about how the accident had occurred. In another case the Court had before it the question whether the man was a contractor or a workman. The man was carting timber from a country district to a saw-mill in the town, and the Court held that as he was using his own horse and cart and carrying the timber at a certain price per ton he was a contractor and not a workman, and refused to give him compensation on that ground. The chief reason why I rose was to call attention to the opportunity that has arisen for associating the medical referees to be appointed under the Insurance Act with the work which arises in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I trust that the attention of the Irish Government will be directed to the matter.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I congratulate my hon. Friend, in introducing this important subject to-night, on the happy result he has achieved. My hon. Friend

  2071
  the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, in his sympathetic speech, has not only accepted the Motion, but, as I understand, he has extended it. He has promised to give us a Committee not only upon the anomalies of the Workmen's Compensation Act law as it now exists, but has promised to extend the terms of reference to the Committee to the very important subject of insurance against injuries received in the course of employment. The only thing I missed from the speech of the hon. Gentleman was the date of the appointment of the Committee, but I do earnestly hope that we shall soon get the date fixed. The speeches which have already been delivered have dealt in some detail with many of the anomalies which necessarily arise in connection with any Compensation Court, whatever its form. I am bound to say, in my opinion, and it is an opinion which is strengthened as time goes on, that many of the existing anomalies arise out of the form of our law. What is the form of the law? We give the worker a claim for compensation if he is injured, and we give his dependents a claim for compensation if he is fatally injured. It is a mere claim, and whether the man gets his compensation or not depends in the first place upon whether his employer is solvent, or in the second place upon whether his employer has insured himself and upon whether the insurance company will treat the workman fairly. In the majority of cases, of course, the employers insure themselves. It therefore comes to this, that when a workman is injured he finds himself pitted against a commercial undertaking which has become expert in the art of resisting claims for compensation. If the workman is happily, as he ought to be, a member of a trade union, he has got that trade union to fight his case; but, as we know unfortunately, out of fifteen or sixteen million of manual workers in this country, there are at the present time at the outside about three million trade unionists.
  Therefore, in a very large number of cases, indeed, the inexperienced man finds himself pitted against the experienced insurance company. When a workman meets with a serious accident it is to him a new experience, and is an isolated case, while to the company, with its experts, its agents, and, I am bound to say, its tame doctors, the company is able to bring against him the knowledge which it has of fighting, perhaps, hundreds, or even
  2072
  thousands, of similar cases. My hon. Friend spoke of the case of the loss of an eye, which brought to my mind the case of the loss of an eye which was related to me in detail a year or two ago, not by the man himself. You never see letters in the newspapers from workmen complaining of how they are treated under the Workmen's Compensation Law, any more than you see letters from workmen complaining of what happened to them in connection with friendly societies. Working men are not in the habit of writing to newspapers. The details of this case were brought before me by the solicitors who had acted for a period of about two years for this unfortunate workman. He was an iron moulder, or what is technically called, I believe, a fine or particular iron moulder, accustomed to do delicate work. He lost an eye, and what was the result? He was largely unfitted for his employment. Nature has provided us with two eyes for the purpose of judging distances. Therefore, in this man's case it meant a great deal that he should have the normal number of eyes. He got compensation for a period, and what happened? The employer, of course, passed out from the matter, and the insurance company took his place, and the insurance company fought the man month after month and year after year. They beat down his compensation, and in the County Court they produced their tame doctors to show that not only was one eye as good, but that it was rather better than two, and they got the County Court judge to believe them. The result was, that this unfortunate man, after receiving a miserable and inadequate compensation for a period of about eighteen months, was glad to accept from the insurance company a miserable lump sum in compensation, and then he passed out of the work of the United Kingdom and passed out of being a useful workman. I do not know now what has become of him, but the latest I heard from the solicitors was that he was now living in poverty.
  That was the end of a man about fifty-five years of age, after spending a useful life in work for the society to which he belonged, in spite of the desires of this House in erecting the workmen's compensation law. I could relate many other distressful cases. They have all forced on my mind this fact, that the whole basis of our law is wrong, and that is why I rejoice at the welcome announcement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We have got an example in this matter in the

  2073
  world that is working so well I am bound to say, if the hon. Member will forgive me, that I do not know why this' Government, or any Government, want any further evidence on the matter, or why a Committee is wanted to decide, that the German insurance law is better than the English workmen's compensation. Why is it better? All the employers in a trade in Germany, under the German law, are compulsorily formed into a mutual insurance association. They have to pay such premiums as are necessary to secure certain statutory compensation, and the workmen in their employment are certain in the ordinary course to receive that compensation. The compensation is rather a higher proportion of wages than it is here. It is two-thirds there, instead of one-half as it is here. I rejoice to notice that in New York State, where they have just adopted a Workmen's Compensation Act, the proportion there is two-thirds instead of one-half, although I should be the last to praise that law on all counts. There is one important point in the German law to which I wish to direct attention, because it covers some of the anomalies referred to to-night, and that point is, that in regard to specific injuries the law names specific compensation. It is the law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, or, rather, the law says that an eye is worth so much and an arm is worth so much, and a leg is worth so much, and so it is not left to a County Court judge to decide what is the worth of an eye to a man. And we should not have, as at present, thousands of workmen, up and down this country, who have been condemned, as in the case I have mentioned, by some County Court judge to the position, that with one eye they are as well able to face the world as when they had two.
  Under the German law, and I speak from memory as I had not intended to take part in this Debate, the compensation for the loss of an eye is 60 per cent., or thereabouts, of the full pension—that is to say, the full compensation being two-thirds of the wage, one eye is compensated by two-thirds of the full pension. So that in the case to which I have referred, the workman, instead of being, as at the present moment, reduced to destitution, would be receiving 60 per cent. of the full compensation under the law. I do hope that the Government will add to the message of hope they have already given
  2074
  to the House in this important matter, and that they will soon tell us when the Committee is to be appointed. I have already expressed the opinion that no Committee is necessary, because the case is so plain, but still, if we are to have it, let it be as quickly as possible, in order that there-may not arise any larger number than already exists of terribly anomalous cases to which my hon. Friend has referred, and which surely must have brought home to hon. Members and to anybody who has studied the subject, the anomalies of the law on workmen's compensation.
  Mr. E. JARDINE: I fancy there must be some misunderstanding as to the compensation for the loss of an eye. I have just had a case in my own experience, where a man has not lost an eye, but simply had an eye injured, thereby being-made permanently less efficient as a skilled worker. The compensation paid to him was based on the difference between what he could earn before as a thoroughly efficient skilled worker, and what he can earn at the same occupation with a damaged eye. He expressed himself as quite satisfied with the compensation, he had no difficulty in obtaining compensation, and I am glad to say he has invested the money, and is receiving wages at his work. There is one point I should like to impress upon the-Under-Secretary, who is in a very generous mood to-night in this matter. We are all in sympathy with the proposal; there is not a Member present but would have voted for the Motion. There is, however, a very great danger to the community in making it profitable to have an accident. Whatever may be the compensation, it is insured against by the employer. Whatever may be the premium for the insurance, he pays it; that amount is passed on to the cost of the article; the article goes to the consumer, and the consumer is the worker. If by any legislation in this House—by workmen's compensation, by the Insurance Act, or by any other means—you increase the number of people who are not workers, those people who could work, but are not working, become a tax on the whole community. They do not become a tax upon any particular class. In the interests of the community it would be extremely undesirable that it should be made easier for people to become idlers instead of workers. The Under-Secretary stated that to-day we are all more or less Socialists. We are. When the Socialist party bring forward a measure to penalise

  2075
  not only the idle rich, but the idle poor. I shall be thoroughly in sympathy with them. I have no feeling of friendship or pity for the man who does not work, no matter what his station in life may be.
  One must congratulate the Mover and the Seconder upon the, way in which they introduced this Motion. There was, perhaps, only one jarring note when the Mover of the Motion had a rather cheap sneer at the man who pays Super-tax, and suggested that he did not care about the poor workman receiving compensation. That is an error that I think the Labour party make. I am proud to say that I am one of the unpopular class who pay Supertax.
  Mr. CROOKS: I wish I had half your complaint.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. E. JARDINE: Unfortunately I am in a business that has been out of fashion for several years. Since 1910 I have been working at a loss, piling up stock, because I have a magnificent set of workers who could not be replaced. I am not saying that I do this out of pity for them. Still, they have been kept going regularly, making stock more or less for four years. I have no hesitation in sayings that my own personal expenditure is no greater than that of the bon. Member who introduced this Motion. The only effect of Super-tax, be it ever so much higher, is that the time when one must close down the works comes the sooner, because the amount of stock that one can make is limited by the amount of cash, and the more of that cash the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the quicker those works must be closed down, while the man who pays Supertax spends no less on his own personal living than before. I would also warn the Under-Secretary of the danger of compelling the employer to find a man light employment. I make no charge against any class. All classes are alike. They want an easy and soft way of doing things. If it is put upon an employer to find light employment for a man who is injured, what inducement is there for the man to do his best to carry out that light employment when by getting discharged he can obtain full wages? It is not a question of being harsh to workpeople at all. It is a question of what is best for the community, and the greater and the better part of the
  2076
  community are the workers. It should not be made too easy for any person to live on the work of others. There is an extreme danger in making it possible for a man to live as a parasite upon the rest of the community, instead of doing what useful work he can. There is no harshness in this, because, as I have said, whatever tax is put on industry is passed on to the consumer; if it cannot be passed on to the consumer the works must eventually be closed, and possibly the foreigner takes the business. The point I want to make is that it is not the employer who has to pay these taxes or this compensation. It is the community and the industry that must and does pay them.
  I sympathise with the Mover of the Motion with regard to the delicate situation in which a man is sometimes put when he has to go before the medical referee. Perhaps it would be a good thing if the man were able to take with him his own doctor. If such had been the course followed an incident which happened about two months ago in the town where I live would probably not have occurred. A man was claiming compensation, the doctors could not agree, and he was sent to the referee. The referee came into his consulting-room, and, seeing a man and woman sitting near each other, assumed that they were man and wife. He said, "Is your name So-and-so? Have you come about this case?" The man said, "Yes." The referee said, "Go downstairs into my electric room, where my assistant will assist you to strip. I want you to be X-rayed." He said to the woman, "You had better go downstairs too. It is no use your staying here." After the time necessary for the X-rays had elapsed, the referee went downstairs. The woman came to him, and said, "If you please, doctor, may I go?" "Yes," said he, "if you like; but will you not stay with your husband?" "Oh," said she, "I have never seen the man before!" If the man had had his own doctor with him, I presume that an unfortunate circumstance of that kind could not have happened. The hon. Member for East Northants (Mr. Chiozza Money) rather suggested that a workman received very hard treatment when his case came into Court. He had to deal with experts, whilst the case was his first case; therefore, the treatment meted out to him was not just, not fair, not generous. Probably there are cases of that kind with which all of us can sympathise; but I think I can appeal

  2077
  to the legal Gentlemen who are in the House, and who will say that the sympathy of the Court is always with the injured. If they want to draw an exactly true line, and show cases where there has been too much compensation, and cases where there has been too little compensation, the cases where there has been too much compensation would be very much larger than those where those concerned had been underpaid. The Home Secretary's Under-Secretary has suggested—I hope I misunderstood him—that not only would there be a Committee appointed, but also that the Government would consider whether they could not link up this workmen's compensation with the Insurance Act. The experience of a large employer is that the cost of administering that Act is great as compared with the benefits. Take one of my factories; it costs me 2d. to give 3d. I hope sincerely that the Government will not undertake that further work, but will leave it to the competition of the private companies, who must, and who always can, work cheaper than any Government, whatever may be the party in power.
  Another point to which I would call the attention of the Under-Secretary to is the appeal that was made that the compensation should be based, not on the man's average earnings, but upon the the earnings of one week. I do not know how that can possibly be done. A man who is working at piece work, as hon. Members on the benches opposite below the Gangway will know, varies considerably in his wages, and it would be necessary, to get anything like a fair amount, to take an average as the average is taken to-day. It would be quite impossible to take one week, because there would possibly be a dispute as to which week was to be taken. There is little further to be said except that I would again appeal to the Labour Members, in the great influence that they may have with the Government, to—shall I say—moderate their demands in view of the fact that in the end it is the worker who must pay whatever sum has to be paid, and that it is in the interests and to the honour of the Labour party to make any class or kind of malingering difficult, not to say impossible, and to go in for true compensation. I think everyone in the House would only be too glad to pay a man full compensation, and not half or two-thirds compensation, if it were possible to believe that human nature were honest enough
  2078
  to say, "I would work if I could, in spite of the fact that I am going to get full pay whether I work or not."
  Mr. GILL: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton is to be congratulated on the important Motion before the House to-night. I think it is necessary that there should be some extensive alteration of this Act, and inasmuch as that can only be done after inquiry, I think we ought to be pleased that the Under-Secretary has promised to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, and I hope that that appointment will be as soon as possible. I should like, before this Debate closes, that we should have some date given to us as to when that will take place. I have been looking to-day into statistics for 1912 in regard to compensation, and I find that there were no less than 3,599 fatal cases, and 424,406 cases of accident which were not fatal. That was in seven large groups of industries. I think we may take it that if all were counted outside this group of industry, that there must be nothing short of half a million of persons injured every year. That is a very important matter, and one which I think the House ought seriously to take into consideration. Everyone in connection with the labour movement who has to deal with these compensation cases would much prefer that the industrial conditions should be made safer than they arc, and so prevent these accidents occurring. No money and no amount of compensation can compensate a person who loses a limb, and so is made unable to work as he otherwise would do. When we find that in the mining industry there is something like 16 per cent. of the persons employed injured every year, and that in the cotton-spinning industry—with which I am myself most acquainted—there is 6 per cent., I think we might argue that everything ought to be done that can be done to make these industrial occupations safer. There are also a very large number of accidents at the docks—nearly as many in proportion as among those persons occupied in mining. There are also the railways and shipbuilding, and many other large industries where a great number of accidents take place.
  I think the Act may be looked upon—although there are anomalies in it—as a large measure of social reform, for the simple reason that it gives benefits to the workers just at the time that they most need them. Look at the large measures which have been passed by this House.

  2079
  There are always some anomalies that creep in. I want to mention just a new of the anomalies that we have come across in the working of this Act. I may say that in connection with my own industry, out of something like 80,000 persons, we have from a thousand to thirteen hundred accidents every year, so that we have some knowledge as to the working of this particular measure. We find that every person injured is required to submit himself to a medical examination. That is as it should be, because the employer is entitled to know whether the person is suffering from an accident or injury that is said to have been caused by an accident. But this medical examination should be conducted in as fair, reasonable, and merciful a way as possible. It ought to be conducted, if possible, at the man's home. It is common enough for the insurance doctor and the doctor who represents the employers to ask the injured workman to go to his surgery. He is there examined by the doctor, without having the presence of any other doctor. The man is not always treated as well as he might be. I think it is absolutely necessary that the workman's own medical man should be in attendance for the purpose of seeing the examination. Then these examinations take place too frequently, and it results in the injured person, who is suffering, and suffering all the time, feeling disgusted at having to be examined so very often. In some instances it causes him to accept a lump sum by way of compensation which otherwise he would not accept. We find, too, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend, that some medical men will give certificates not only as to the condition of the man at the time, but they will say what his condition will be in a month or two, and will declare that at the end of that period he will be ready for work. We have found regularly that where certificates of that kind had been given that the man has not been ready for work at the time, although the compensation has been stopped on the doctor's certificate. Many times it is months afterwards before he is ready to stand work. We find also that there are numbers of employers who take advantage of the workmen by compelling them to bring medical certificates week by week. That is entirely wrong, and no employer is entitled to do it. The Act provides that he can have him examined at his home so that the doctor
  2080
  should certify, and employers ought to be informed that this practice should not be carried out. With regard to the medical referees, I think it is reasonable to ask that any person appointed as a referee ought to be able to take an unbiased view of the position. If he examines a person he ought to give a fair decision, and he ought not to be a person engaged in private practice, because if he is, he must have some bias one way or the other. I do not think it requires an amending Act to provide that medical referees should give whole-time service. I think it could be done by administration. Lord Gladstone, when at the Home Office, promised that experiments should be made, and that one or two persons should be appointed in one or two districts. I think that would give more satisfaction. I do not think the employers want to do anything unfair, and they ought to be protected to see that they do not pay compensation when they ought not to do so.
  In 1906 we took a great interest in the Bill brought in for amending the Compensation Act of 1897, and we certainly expected that the basis of compensation would be worked out differently from what it has been. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) sat upon the last Committee that inquired into the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the last Act was passed, and I think he will agree with me that it was fully intended that persons injured by an accident should be entitled to 50 per cent. of the wages they earned—50 per cent. of the standard wages—when working full time. I am more confirmed in that view because for the first three or four years after 1908 that was carried out in many industries—half of the full wages were generally given—but during the last three or four years there has been a system of averaging, and the result is, instead of the workman getting half of the full wage, he is now getting less. Whenever trade oppression takes place there is a good deal of time stopped, and men are working shorter hours, and he is not only penalised by having to lose his wages for working short time, but it has an effect upon the compensation as well, because they take the average of the wages, and the average is less, and he loses both ways. That, I think, is certainly wrong, and some steps ought to be taken to get over that difficulty. If it could be made to apply

  2081
  to half the full week's wages I think it would be far more satisfactory.
  Then, with regard to what is done on the question of resuming work where the injured person has received full compensation, and he is found not to be able to do his full work, the employer takes the case to the Court, asking to have the compensation reduced or ended, and the judge generally decides that the man is able to do work and the compensation reduced. The man is not able to work for the simple reason he cannot get employment. He might be able to earn if he could get employment, and I think it is very unfair that his compensation should be reduced when he is not able to earn the money which the judge says he could earn. Some provision ought to be made whereby the full compensation should be kept on until such time as the man had an opportunity or was able to get fresh employment. There is another anomaly which applies to many trades, and especially to the cotton trade, and I refer to persons under twenty-one years of age, and those who are over that age, and I want to show the distinction which is made. The Act provides that a person under twenty-one years of age earning less than £1 per week shall be entitled to 10s. a week compensation. But if a persons is earning less than 10s. per week he receives 100 per cent. of his wages. Under twenty-one years of age they are entitled to 50 per cent. of their earnings. We have plenty of people in the cotton trade of seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years of age earning 17s. and 18s. a week, and there are others who are twenty-two or twenty-three years of age earning the same wages, and who, if they happen to be injured, ought to be entitled to 9s., while the others would be entitled to 10s. This could be dealt with by providing that all those earning less than £1 a week should be entitled to 10s., whatever the age might be.
  Then there is the question with regard to the lump sums. Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) to the case of a person losing an eye or a limb. There is a provision in the Act which was got in by an Amendment in 1906, which provides that where permanent incapacity results from an accident, instead of the judge having any discretion as to what amount-shall be granted, that the amount shall be a lump sum equal to 75 per cent. of what a Post Office annuity would cost. Permanent incapacity is a very difficult thing
  2082
  to describe. A man may lose a leg or an arm, and the judge may decide that he is able to do something. I think some alteration ought to be made in the direction mentioned, and some sum should be fixed in regard to the different kinds of injury which partially incapacitates a person. The judge might take the ordinary course of reviewing the amount of compensation and fix what was considered a reasonable weekly payment to a person in that condition, and the lump sum could be worked out on that basis.
  The registration of agreements is in a very unsatisfactory condition. The Clause in the second Schedule provides that when the amount of compensation under the Act has been ascertained or decided, either by a committee or an arbitrator, or by agreement, the Memorandum shall be sent in by the party interested. Now we have several parties interested, and the result often is that agreements are not signed and registered because it is nobody's particular duty to do it. I think this duty ought to be fixed upon the employer, and the fact that he is paying weekly compensation ought to be sufficient. I do not think that every agreement ought to be registered. Where a person is out of work for six weeks, it is reasonable to expect that the employer should be required to register that fact. The question of serious and wilful misconduct was referred to by the hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson), and the statement he made was a perfectly correct one. Previous to the Act of 1906 being passed, so far as serious and wilful misconduct was concerned, it was sufficient to debar an injured person from receiving compensation provided it was proved. In the 1906 Act it was so amended that in cases of serious and permanent disablement or fatal accident, even after serious and wilful misconduct had occurred, compensation should still be paid under those circumstances. What is happening? Where small accidents occur, the plea of serious and wilful misconduct is used for the purpose of preventing the injured workman from getting compensation; and where serious accidents occur the question of serious and wilful misconduct docs not come in, but it is generally tried to prove that it does not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment. There was the case of a boy in a cotton mill in my own town, connected with my own society. He was doing a certain piece of work, commonly done in the

  2083
  mill, but it was said that he was told at some time or other that he must not do it. He lost his arm, "but the plea that it did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment was raised, with the result that he got no compensation. It was fought very strongly, and we went to all the limits of our resources, but the judge decided that it did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment. I think that the judge was wrong. If he had done something which he ought not to have done, it was without a doubt serious and wilful misconduct, but it was attempted to shift the plea, and to say that it did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment, in order to get out of the payment of compensation. I do not think that it was a proper thing to do. The Under-Secretary rather suggested that something was to be done in the case of a number of small employers, who are not able at all times to meet the payments when a workman is injured. They do not insure, and they are not wealthy enough themselves to meet the payments. Something ought to be done to see that these persons are compelled to insure, so that the payments can be made. Everyone knows that something requires to be done. The half million cases to which I have referred as occurring year after year show clearly that the occupations in this country are not as safe as they might be, and what compensation can be given ought to be given, and it ought to be adequate. I trust that the Committee will be set up at as early a date as possible, because it is always one or two years after a Committee is set up before anything is done. They have got to issue their "Report, and it takes the Government a considerable time to consider their Report. I trust that this matter will be speeded up, because it is now overdue, and if the Home Secretary will take that course I think that we shall have reason to be satisfied.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I want to express some of my own personal disappointments with the operation of the Act. First of all, perhaps I may be allowed to say with regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway on this side that no one can find any fault with it. We know very well that in the operation of labour and capital in this country there are many men like him of generous minds and good hearts, but the workman has not to do with his employer. In almost every
  2084
  instance he deals, not with the employer, but with an insurance company which comes between the employer and the employed. I learn with satisfaction that the Under-Secretary has accepted the Motion, and that he is prepared to establish a Committee at some time or other. Permit me to say it is high time such a thing should be done. The Employer's Liability Act was passed in 1880. Seventeen years afterwards we had the first Workmen's Compensation Act, and nine years after that the Act of 1906 took the place of the Act of 1897 on the Statute Book. The operation of that Act from that date to this has shown enormous inequalities. Some men in my own experience have succeeded in their cases in Court where, they ought to have failed, and many have failed where they ought to have succeeded. When the Act of 1897 was passed, it was observed by those who had the opportunity, that the Courts of Law failed to understand its spirit, and that even the Court of Appeal failed to understand the spirit of the Legislature which passed the Act. The Court of Appeal gave many decisions in the early days of the Act that had to be reviewed, revised, and upset by the House of Lords. I must say that the House of Lords did understand its own mind when it passed the Act, and great credit is due to Lord Halsbury for having set the Act upon its proper basis, and for having brought the Court of Appeal to its senses in the matter. The Supreme Court of Appeal taught the Courts below a lesson that they did not forget, and the Act from that day forward got a more liberal interpretation from the Court.
  But the inequalities have continued; they are growing day by day, and they are making it almost impossible to operate the Act in anything like an equitable manner. That is increasingly so. What I rose to complain of most was this: that the Act has failed to carry out our intentions with regard to the readiness with which a workman may get his case heard. I remember in one of the early decisions under the Act of 1897—I forget for the moment the name of the case—Lord Halsbury laid it down that the object of the Act in this respect was to bring the workman and employer face to face; to bring them as quickly as possible together, so that the workman might get his case settled by arbitration between them. I must say from my experience of the working of the Act it has entirely failed to pro-

  2085
  duce this result. I handle cases from time to time under this Act, and I am amazed at the period which has elapsed from the date of the accident to the day of the case coming into Court. It is not right to keep a man idle all that time, developing the bad habit of idleness, and, as is the case very often, keeping him away from work and encouraging it may be, malingering to some extent, because it will not do for a man in order to get justice—at least he thinks so—to appear in Court hale and hearty and ask for compensation which might be given to him in a higher degree if he presented himself lame and limp, and apparently suffering from the accident with which he has met.
  Any Committee that may be appointed will do well to inquire into the causes of the delays in meting out justice to both parties under the Act, and as to the obstacles which at present exist to the employers and the employed coming to an agreement with regard to compensation, as was profoundly and earnestly expressed by Lord Halsbury in the case to which I have referred. I repeat the Committee would do well to find out what these causes are, and suggest a remedy for the same. I will only make one reference to what has been urged on all sides on the matter of light employment, and that brings me to what I think ought to be the object of that Committee. Light employment is not to be found within the four corners of the Act. Light employment and the doctrine it expresses is judge-made law. In any Act of Parliament that may take the place of the Act of 1906 I would suggest that there ought to be more definitions, that the intentions of the Legislature ought to be well defined and less room left for judge-made law. The inequalities that have been pointed out by trade union officials, and by hon. Members opposite, all arise from the inequalities of judgments by judges, who have made judge-made law. They all arise from the interpretation of the Act. The Act ought to be defined and left as little as possible to the law that fills our Statute Books. I would impress upon the Under-Secretary the necessity of expediting, if possible, this Committee and doing away with the law's delay, which undoubtedly is one of the greatest scandals attending the operation of this Act, one that we all hoped to set aside when we passed the Act through this House, and one which the House of Lords itself, when it took up the Act and carried it through in the spirit in which
  2086
  it was conceived, endeavoured to make impossible for the future. I thank the Under-Secretary for having consented to the proposal, and I believe that the Bill ought not to be put off, that the Committee ought to be appointed as soon as possible, and that the Act ought to be put into operation as soon as possible.
  Mr. MACKINDER: There is only one point, a practical point, that I wish to raise. It is not in any sense a party point, but it is a Scottish grievance, and I am fortunate in seeing on the Front Bench opposite the Lord Advocate. The fact, I believe is this: That in connection with the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act the scale of fees for arbitration in England is very much lower than the scale of fees in Scotland. When a case goes for arbitration to an English County Court, I am told that it costs £2 10s., but a similar case costs as much as £10 in Scotland. Where an arbitration is pressed to the end it may cost as much as £100 in Scotland to get £1 of compensation, and as little as £50 or £60 in England. I do not know whether it would be necessary that that point should be settled by the Committee, or whether it would be possible to remove the grievance without consideration of the Committee. I fancy that an act of sederunt by the Lord President might put the matter right, and I ask the Lord Advocate whether he cannot possibly whisper in the ear of the Lord President—and see if the matter cannot be put right. If it is not possible to deal with it in that simple way, then the matter ought to go to the Committee. What the hon. Member (Mr. E. Jardine) said in regard to the fact that these charges—including, of course, the legal charges—fall on the whole industry, and ultimately on the workers in the industry, is the fact, and this, therefore, is not in any sense merely an employers' point, but is equally a point where the trade unions are concerned. I trust the Lord-Advocate will be able to give expression to the wishes I have been asked to put before the House.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The point the hon. Member has raised he has quite truly said is not a party point. It relates to the cost of conducting those arbitrations in Scotland, and he has told us that the cost is greater in Scotland than in England. Ho has quite rightly said that that is a question rather for the decision of the Judges of the Court of

  2087
  Session than for the Committee which it is proposed to appoint for the investigations into the circumstances of the working of the Act, and accordingly it would be quite improper for me to express my view with regard to that matter. There are two sides to that question. I have had the advantage of having had the employers' view presented to me, and I am also to have the advantage of having the view presented to me of those who represent the workmen, and not having heard both sides affords me a sufficient reason for abstaining from expressing my view with regard to it. But I will say that the Lord President of the Court of Session, my distinguished predecessor in office, is very familiar with the circumstances relating to that particular matter. He was approached, to my knowledge, both by those who represent the employers and by those who represent those who are employed, and all I need say at present is that I shall have pleasure in conveying to him the view which my hon. Friend has presented to the House, and in asking him in consultation with his brother judges to consider that view as well as the view which is to be presented on behalf of the representatives of those who are employed.
  Mr. CURRIE: After an experience covering about half a generation of the working of this Act, it is not surprising that there is a general impression that some amendment or extension of its provisions is called for. With the main contention of those who moved this Motion, I am frankly entirely in sympathy, and I am only disappointed that the undertaking which the Under-Secretary gave was rather vague in its terms. I rather wish that an indication had been given that the work of this Committee would be begun without delay. On both sides of the House the contention has been urged that the Act of 1807, and the other Acts, have been more or less failures. If I agreed with that view I should not wish to have anything more to do with further Acts of the same kind, and it is just because I do not agree with that view that I am in favour of this Committee going on with its work with as little delay as possible. We are told that the whole basis of the law is wrong. After all, what is the basis of the law? It seems to me that it is quite simple, and, what is more, that it is really quite equitable. It is simply that the workman who meets with injury in the course of his work should receive compen-
  2088
  sation. I cannot see why, if that is so, we should be asked to admit that the whole basis of the law is wrong at all. If we are asked to admit that the application of the law is difficult, or that its scope is too narrow, these are altogether different questions. It is because I believe the basis of the law to be both simple and sound that I am in favour of the extension of the application of the Act. In my experience in my own Constituency I have had my attention drawn to quite a number of cases which must be admitted to be anomalies mainly arising in connection with seafaring injuries. I do not propose to enter into these at length, because sufficient individual instances have been given to-night to make good the main contention. I hope that when the Committee gets to work its proceedings will be free to a great extent from criticisms of the original Act of the kind made to-night, I think, rather too freely.
  If I may illustrate my point, I would like to take up one or two of the criticisms that have been made. They appear to me to be somewhat gratuitous, and in no case do I think they are necessary to make good the contention in the Motion before us, nor do I think they help the case in the least degree. We are told that a man in private practice as a doctor must be biased. I ask the House why must a man engaged in private practice of any kind necessarily be biased? Take the case of the Lord Advocate. His eminent position at the Scottish Bar has been built up upon private practice. That is no reason why we should be asked to believe that when he is engaged in arbitration work he is necessarily to be regarded as a biased party. Take my own case. I practise as a chartered accountant. Am I to be asked to believe that because I engage in private practice I cannot take an unbiased position. If any accountant, lawyer, or engineer, can be unbiased when he should be unbiased, what reason can there possibly be for suggesting a man in practice as a physician is in a different position? I confess I cannot see what reasonable reason can be supposed to underlie any such contention. Then, again, from more than one quarter to-night we have had suggestions of the ill-will towards courts of law. I think myself that the workmen who have derived benefits under this Act should really rather be grateful to the courts of law. I wish, indeed, that the

  2089
  procedure before them were not so expensive. I daresay most people have that wish. I think it must be admitted that if the courts of law have had a leaning on either side, it has not been against the workmen whose cases have been tried before the judges. We hear it said that the ingenuity of lawyers has been strained. I do not think that there is really very much substance in that contention. I do not think it is the case. I do think that workmen interested in these cases have suffered from one class of lawyer, and I am surprised that the point has not been brought forward to-night, because to my mind, although the point is difficult to deal with, it is one the successful dealing with which would' carry the greatest benefit to those who suffer most by the lack of any plan to prevent the evil, and that is the evil of the speculative lawyer. I think anyone who has had any experience of those cases knows that one of the greatest evils which the Workmen's Compensation Act has had to encounter has been the existence of the speculative and unscrupulous solicitor.
  Mr. MUNRO: Hear, hear.
  Mr. CURRIE: I am glad to have the Lord Advocate concurring with me, because I am sure ho is one of the men to whom we look to try to put down the evil when the opportunity arises. He must know from his great experience of these cases that that is really one of the blots in connection with the practical working of the Act. I am sorry to think that it is an evil which is very difficult to deal with. Complaints are made that the results of certain decisions has been that one man is held to be a workman and another man is held to be a contractor. It appears to be rather unreasonable to try to hold the Courts of Law liable for that distinction. I think the decisions given in the Courts of Law have been essentially reasonable. It is the case that men who have been held not to be entitled to benefits under the Act, because they are contractors, were really contractors and not workmen. I do not see what other decision could have been arrived at in those cases. It may be that the wording of another Act should be wider, so as to include some of these men, but you will never in any Act of Parliament get rid of the determination of questions of fact that arise in these cases, and I do not think that any aspersions should be thrown on the Courts of Law, who are" simply called upon to determine these questions of fact. Ill-
  2090
  will has been expressed towards one of the parties largely interested in the working of the Act—that is, the insurance companies. In the present case I think that it is only fair to remember, and it is very important to remember, especially if the suggestion is to be pressed that the State should become responsible for these burdens, that the working of the Act has not been found by the insurance companies to be very profitable. Those people who know much about insurance will recognise that this question of insurance has not been profitable for the companies who originally thought that they could make a fair profit, and in some cases a large profit, out of it. It cannot be contended that the insurance companies have made an unduly large profit out of the working classes in respect of the working of the Act. Therefore it is only reasonable when the working of the Act is criticised that no animus should be shown against these insurance companies. My interest in seeing this Committee appointed is not entirely out of sympathy for the working classes. I do sympathise with them. I think that their grievances under the Act are quite genuine. But why in cases of this kind should one always discuss a proposal to amplify the operation of an Act simply from the point of view of one class of the community? It seems to me that in the interests of all classes no large section of men should suffer a hardship of this kind. We are agreed that the basis of the Act is perfectly fair, that a man who meets with an innocent injury should be compensated. I do not think that the giving of compensation to that man should be regarded as a favour or even as an act of justice to him. It is an act of justice to the whole community, and to the employing class just as much as to the employed class. I hope that when the Committee does get to work some of the considerations to which I have drawn attention will not be lost sight of.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill). I understood him to say that in his opinion there were four different grievances which the class he represents has against the Bill. The first was the constant examination of employés by medical men to see whether or not they were capable of undertaking work. The second was that a medical man because he had private practice would necessarily be a biased man. The next

  2091
  was that when a man was sufficiently recovered to obtain work, he was certified by the doctor as being capable of obtaining work and consequently he did not receive the compensation to which he would have been entitled if he had not been in a fit condition to obtain work, whether or not he got that work. The fourth condition was, I think, that the amount of compensation under the last Act was insufficient. With regard to the criticism that a man having stated that John Jones, who had unfortunately received an injury in the course of his employment, is now sufficiently recovered to obtain light work, or some sort of work, his compensation should be reduced, but that John Jones could not obtain work. I understand that what the hon. Member desires is that until work has been obtained the compensation shall be continued. That would be all right if human beings were angels, but they are not, not even workmen, who are very nearly as bad as employers, or I might go so far as to say that they are slightly superior to employers. That being so, what is the result under those circumstances? Obviously, no man would ever get employment at all, because he would say, "Oh, well, it is quite true that the doctor said I was capable of doing certain work; I am only too willing if I could get the work, but I cannot get it. I am obliged to state that I know certain people have offered me certain work, but there was some condition in it which I did not like, and, therefore, I shall not take it." The consequence is that John Jones will go on receiving from his employer compensation to which he is not entitled either in equity or in law. The other question was that a man who was in private practice was probably biased. That seems to me to be a most extraordinary statement. My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that a great many eminent lawyers, like the Lord-Advocate or any other eminent lawyer who have made large sums out of private practice, have been appointed as arbitrators; but, he pointed out that no one has ever said that because they made large sums in private practice, therefore, they were biased and not fit to become arbitrators in particular cases. The hon. Member would, I presume, require that there should be a Government official to judge. I do not believe about the lawyers to whom I have
  2092
  referred being biased, but in regard to public officials they are very often biased, and I am certainly against appointing more Government officials. I should have liked to have referred to the remainder of the four questions, but, it being now eleven o'clock, I have not time to do so.
  Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, a Committee should be appointed to consider and report upon the anomalies that have been created in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  HOUSING (RURAL DISTRICTS).
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  11.0 P.M.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to raise the question of the attitude of the Government towards rural housing, and I do so in consequence of a most unsatisfactory answer given by the President of the Local Government Hoard this afternoon. We find ourselves in a most extraordinary position on this question. For three years in succession Members on this side of the House have brought in Bills for the purpose of dealing with this urgent problem, and those Bills have been blocked and obstructed by the Government. The Government then announced last autumn that they had a rival policy, which was themselves, by means of a central department, to build cottages where they were wanted; they told us that the question was urgent, and that they intended to deal with it at once. What do we find to-day? That nothing has been done, that nothing is going to be done in the immediate future, that what is to be done will depend on legislation, and that the Government are not prepared to say when they intend to introduce that legislation. I want to remind the President of the Local Government Board that his colleagues in the Cabinet—I do not say he himself—distinctly told the country last winter that they were going to deal with the question at once. I will quote short passages from two speeches made by his colleagues. First of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Swindon, on 22nd October last—that is seven months ago—said:—
  "Now I come to housing. There is a great deficiency in the number of houses. You are 120,000 houses short

  2093
  in rural areas. We hare decided, therefore, not only that it ought to be dealt with, but that it ought to be dealt with as an urgent problem. I will tell you what I mean by that. There are two ways of dealing with it. One is leaving it to local authorities. [Much laughter], I see you have settled that: I do not mind telling you that, I agree with you. We agree that if there was plenty of time and no particular hurry, the local authorities might do it more economically. But there is not plenty of time, certainly not in the rural districts. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that, the central Government have got to do it. We propose, therefore, to get a schedule of those districts, to find out what the shortage is what houses are required, and we propose to build them ourselves. [A voice: 'Noble hero'!]."
  Where is the "noble hero" now? Where are the cottages that the "noble hero" was going to build? It is all put off. He was merely deceiving the country and this House. The "noble hero's" cottages have not been built; they have to wait for legislation, and the right hon. Gentleman's colleague is not ready even to introduce legislation. Now I will take another colleague, the President of the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. BOOTHmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not dealing with the hon. Member for Pontefract. I know full well that the hon. Gentleman was one of the chief obstructionists in the House to our Bill. No doubt he will continue to aid the Government in obstruction. Speaking at Huntington on 5th November the President of the Board of Agriculture said:—
  "If they were to have the best labourers, they must house their workmen well. This must be undertaken by a central authority, and the Government were going to make a start with 10,000 cottages, and to finance the scheme with £1,500,000."
  They were going to make a start at once. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was an urgent problem. They obstructed our plan, which was to do the work by means of aid to the local authorities. After all this talk seven or eight months ago, we do not even hear that they are doing anything. In reply to my question this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman did not even answer the point: whether housing is still the policy of the Government. I very much doubt whether it is still the policy of the Government. I do not believe they have got any policy. They simply want to keep it till the next election. They talk a lot about clearing the slums, getting rid of unsanitary areas, building cottages for the people, and providing them with decent homes; but they have firmly made up their minds that they will not do it in the present Parliament.
  2094
  All this talk about starting with 10,000 cottages, and building 120,000 cottages for the people in the country districts is merely to deceive those who believe that there is a policy, while, as a matter of fact, they have got no policy at all. I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government policy? He did not answer my question whether building by the Central Authority was still the policy. All he said was that legislation would be necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in that "noble hero" speech never suggested that legislation was necessary. If legislation were necessary, why has it not been introduced and at an early part of the Session? When is it going to be introduced?
  We have been told that the question is urgent, and the Government are doing absolutely nothing to redeem the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I I raise this question merely as an inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, because our policy was obstructed by the Government. They said they had an alternative. They indicated to the country what that alternative was. They have never brought forward anything in this House. In a few weeks time, probably directly after Whitsuntide, the Unionist Housing Bill, which has three times passed Second Beading, will be before the Committee. If the Government are really prepared with a practical policy we are quite willing to withdraw our Bill and make way for their proposals. So long as they have got no policy, and merely talk to the country in the way they have been doing, we shall persist in our policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wilton to-day asked a question, supplementary to mine, as to whether it was the fact that in consequence of the announcement of the Government that building operations had been stopped all over the country? I know myself of district councils who are holding their hands because they are expecting the Government to do something. So long as the Government do nothing the result is that they are making the housing-difficulty greater than it was before. They are themselves doing nothing, and they are preventing others from taking steps. The question is urgent, and not a matter really of party politics. It is a great national question, and ought to be dealt with honestly and squarely. At all events, we ought to know whether or not the Government intend to redeem the

  2095
  pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Agriculture.
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I recognise from the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which was couched in very different tones from his earlier remarks, that this question of housing need not be, and ought not to be, a party question. I recognise further that the hon Gentleman himself has for some years shown considerable zeal in the cause of housing improvement. Still the fact remains that his speech this evening, made on the Motion for Adjournment, when we have but little Parliamentary time, was a very bitter partisan attack, and I have been led to the conclusion that his zeal for housing reform for its own sake, which I am quite sure is sincere and genuine, is accompanied by very considerable zeal for housing reform as a possibly useful cry for his own party—
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have said over and over again in this House, and repeated it to-night, that, as far as the Unionist Housing Bill is concerned, we are quite willing to accept any Amendment from any side of the House that will improve the Bill. I do not want to make it a party question.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am quite well aware that the hon. Member made that offer, but at the same time the whole tone and character of his speech to-night was unquestionably such as to leave the impression, at all events, on this side of the House, that he brought up this topic for the purpose of making an attack upon the Government, rather than for the purpose of securing an effective result in housing reform, and we cannot but remember that while hon. Members opposite were in power for ten years, with an unchallengeable superiority in this House, and a Second Chamber always at their command, they never lifted a single finger to pass any legislation to deal in any effective fashion with this problem. Unquestionably during that time there were in many districts a shortage of cottages. The reasons why we do not support the hon. Member's Bill are because we consider it is framed upon bad lines. It is not necessary, because you admit that there is an evil, and that the evil calls for remedy, that therefore you should accept any remedy.
  2096
  Of course, any remedy should be accepted from any quarter of the House if it be on sound and satisfactory lines, but there is no reason why you should accept any remedy merely because it is considered by some Members as going far to solve the housing problem. Our objection to the hon. Member's Bill is that it will subsidise low wages and refuse help where good wages are paid, and labourers are able to pay economic rents and subsidise the very districts in which the lowest wages are paid. We think that is approaching the question at the wrong end. You ought not to lower rents at the expense of the rates and taxes to meet low wages in order that a man should be in a position to pay for the cottage what it cost to provide it. The hon. and gallant Member said that to his knowledge rural district councils had held their hands on account of the intimation given that the Government would themselves erect houses. If that is so, it is a most astounding fact, for the Government have publicly declared, in a letter written to Mr. Hobhouse, chairman of the Somerset County Council, that when the Government themselves erect houses they will be quite prepared to take over any liability incurred by rural district councils in this direction. That was a distinct pledge given by ray predecessor at the Local Government Board, with the authority of the Prime Minister and the Members of the Cabinet. Therefore, if any rural district councils are now holding their hands in this policy of not carrying into execution their work, I venture to say they are acting quite unnecessarily, for the introduction of the Government's housing policy will not in any way interfere with any action they may now take. With respect to quotations the hon. Member has made from speeches by my colleagues, he quoted one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he declared that the first and essential step was to say precisely where it was necessary for these houses to be built. He said the first step was to take a survey of the housing conditions and ascertain in what localities the new cottages ought to be built. That survey is now in full process of being taken. Local authorities some time ago were asked to supply particulars of the number of houses they required in their localities, how many are not fit for habitation, and how many fit for habitation are still seriously defective. The survey is being rapidly completed. On two occasions, if not more, the Chancellor

  2097
  of the Exchequer distinctly declared that the first step in the Government's policy was to take this housing survey and get a thoroughly scientific knowledge of the requirements of the people. Unquestionably, legislation is needed. The hon. Member did not dispute that the Government would be going beyond its power if it attempted to deal with this question without legislation. The other night I was attacked for a supposed infringement of propriety for measures I took with regard to the classification of roads without statutory authority. It was totally unnecessary in that case, but if either my Department or any other Department had set to work to spend public money in building houses without Parliamentary authority hon. Members opposite will be the first to complain. The President of the Board of Agriculture in two speeches during the winter campaign declared that
  "the Board will have no power to erect cottages until Parliament has given them the requisite power to do so. In the present state of the law the Board have no power to acquire land to build cottages."
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We have been told that the Government intended to proceed under the Crown Lands Act to put up some cottages as a first instalment of a great land scheme. Why do you not proceed under the Crown Lands Act?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That can only be done where the Crown own land, and, in this case, they have built a number of cottages. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Forest of Dean?"] With respect to Rosyth, schemes are being actively organised and a complete town planning arrangement is on foot there. The question of Farnborough is engaging the active attention of the War Office and the Local Government Board in order to see that proper accommodation should be provided for Government employés. I said to-day that I was not in a position to say when legislation will be introduced. The hon. Member is pressing the Government to introduce housing legislation. We certainly propose to introduce legislation, but at this moment, with the great problems before us of Irish Government and the Finance Bill, the present moment before Whitsuntide is not the time such legislation can be proceeded with. The question is engaging the very active attention of the Government, and I trust before long that I shall have the opportunity of inviting the hon. Member who has spoken
  2098
  to-night to lend me all his assistance to pass an effective Housing Bill which will enable us to acquire land on fair and reasonable terms.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the action of his predecessor in giving notice to the local authorities that they might proceed with schemes which the Government would take up, and he added that he had the backing of the Government for that purpose. What right had he to make that announcement, and how can he bind the hands of the Government? Is it any security to any local authority? If he had brought in a short Bill or a Resolution in this House that would be the case, and he could boast of it; but, as a matter of fact, that declaration of his predecessor is of no more worth than the paper on which it is written. It is merely the promise of an individual, backed up by a number of individuals, and if the Government changes its mind it is worth nothing whatever. No local authority can spend a single farthing on that declaration, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well.
  Mr. ROYDS: The right hon. Gentleman stated that nothing was done by the Unionist Government when they were in power. That is perfectly untrue, because they brought in the Act of 1800.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not the last Unionist Government.
  Mr. ROYDS: I said the Unionist Government. They passed that Act, and the whole of the building by the local authorities is based upon that Act at the present time. While the Unionist Government were in office up to 1906 the number of houses built in this country averaged 135,000. Last year the number of houses built was 56,000, and the average number since you have been in office has been only 81,000, and 61,000 since the "People's Budget" was passed.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the hon. Gentleman wish the House to draw the conclusion that there was no housing problem during the years prior to 1906?
  Mr. ROYDS: I never said anything of the sort; but I do say that this Government have made the problem acute. Just at the time it was getting acute, they came down with the People's Budget and destroyed private enterprise that was

  2099
  supplying the houses of the country. The ex-President of the Local Government Board has always said that in the past private enterprise has housed the people, and that we must look to private enterprise in the future. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend has been introduced to supplement private enterprise. It is because private enterprise has failed that it has been necessary to introduce the Bill, to supplement it, and to give assistance to the local authorities, but the proposal of the Government, as I understand it, is still further to destroy, not only private enterprise, but also the building by the local authorities. There is not the slightest doubt that not only are private persons holding their hands and doing little or no building, but the local authorities are looking at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Agriculture stated in their speeches in the autumn, and they are waiting to see what the Government are going to do, with the result that instead of 56,000 houses being built this
  2100
  year, it is very doubtful whether there will be 30,000 built. It is stated, on the most reliable authority, that in the big towns in this country, at the end of this year, there will not be a vacant house. The young couples cannot get married because they cannot get houses. Exactly the same thing applies in the rural districts, and yet the right hon. Gentleman this evening gives not the slightest hint or suggestion as to when the Government are going to introduce legislation to supply this most urgent and pressing need. I do hope that when the Bill of my hon. Friend comes on for discussion the Government will there and then show their hand, and will either state what they are going to do, and do it instantly, or support the Bill introduced from this side, which will, at any rate—
  It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  Old Age Pensions Act (Regulations).
  Old Age Pensions Act (Regulations).
  Direct and Indirect Taxation.
  Direct and Indirect Taxation.
BUDGET PROPOSALS.
  IRISH EXPENDITURE.
  IRISH EXPENDITURE.
  EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  EQUIVALENT GRANT.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  IRISH GRANTS.
  IRISH GRANTS.
  MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Fair Rent Cases.
  Fair Rent Cases.
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  KING'S REGULATIONS.
  KING'S REGULATIONS.
  "Time Cribbing," Lancashire (Prosecutions).
  "Time Cribbing," Lancashire (Prosecutions).
  Royal Arsenal (Forges).
  Royal Arsenal (Forges).
  Schools of Arts and Crafts.
  Schools of Arts and Crafts.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  LOANS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  LOANS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
POST OEFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  ASSISTANT ENGINEERS.
  ASSISTANT ENGINEERS.
  Iron and Steel Goods (Total Production).
  Iron and Steel Goods (Total Production).
  Regent's Park (St. John's Lodge).
  Regent's Park (St. John's Lodge).