Sitting of 5 July 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for Return, "showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1916 under licences granted under the Act, 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 116, of Session 1916)."— [Mr. Brace.]
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Copy presented of Additional Regulations, dated 2nd July, 1917, made by the Board of Trade under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, extending the period of allowance for accelerating Counter Machines [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order No. 9,870, dated 28th June, 1917, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 1st October, 1917, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules made by the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

City of Liverpool;

Borough of Preston

[by Act]; to He upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Town of Luton
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    AMERICA (PASSPORTS).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state on what grounds a passport to America was refused to Miss Nugent, of 58, Eccles Street, Dublin, seeing that her home and business are in America, and that she came to Ireland only for the purpose of visiting her relations; and whether he will now advise the proper authorities to issue her a passport forthwith?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Passports cannot be granted at the present time for women or children to travel oversea save in exceptional cases of urgent necessity. Miss Nugent has, however, been informed that if she will renew her application later OIL the passport will he granted at the earliest available opportunity.
    Mr. JOYCE: Will the Noble Lord say when the restrictions will be raised on the emigration of women to America?
    Lord R. CECIL: I could not say that. It does not rest with the Foreign Office.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the Noble Lord aware that there is a great number of cases in Ireland in which that reply has been given and nothing has been done?
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not in the interests of the safety of the women and children themselves that these passports have been prohibited?
    Lord R. CECIL: The prohibition is imposed by other offices, and not by the Foreign Office. I have no doubt that that was one of the considerations.
    Mr. JOYCE: Will the Noble Lord have the matter looked into with a view to having the restriction raised, so that women may be able to go out to their friends in America who want them there?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would venture to suggest that the hon. Member should put a question to the Leader of the House on this point. I am not really in a position to deal with it.

    EGYPTIAN SECRET POLICE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the chief of the Egyptian secret police, after a service of twenty-five years, has been convicted on eight counts and sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a fine of £800; whether an inquiry will be held into the cases of men executed, sentenced, or deported owing to the activities of this convict; and, if So, whether such inquiry will be immediate and public?
    Lord R. CECIL: As regards the first part of the question, I have no official information beyond what has appeared in the Press. I will, however, consult His Majesty's High Commissioner on the points raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. KING: In view of the fact that respectable people have actually had to leave Egypt owing to the blackmailing of this man, will some urgent representation be made to have a full statement of his delinquencies?
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member without further inquiry. As I have said, that is being made.

    BELGIUM (GERMAN CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH).
    Mr. PON SON BYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the German Chancellor has declared that Beligum must form part of the economic system of Germany and of the military and naval defence of Germany; and, if so, on what occasion the statement was made?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no official information beyond that contained in the speeches of the German Chancellor as published in the Press. The hon. Member must form his own judgment as to the meaning of those speeches, but I cannot myself doubt that the speeches of 9th December, 1915, and 6th April. 1916. are on this point correctly summarised in the words quoted in the question.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is the Noble Lord aware that the words quoted in the question are those used by the Prime Minister in his Glasgow speech as representing a statement made by the German Chancellor, while apparently from the reply no such statement was made?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not at all agree with that interpretation. I am quite aware that the words were used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I had said that in my view they were a correct summary of what the Chancellor said.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      WHEAT.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the Argentine at this moment possesses between 200,000 and 300,000 tons of grain in excess of the amount that has been revealed by the Argentine official figures; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to have the embargo upon the export of Argentine grain to Europe removed?
      Lord R. CECIL: There is no information in the possession of His Majesty's Government to show that- the Argentine official figures in respect of grain supplies are incorrect. His Majesty's Government have made every effort to secure the removal of the embargo on the export of wheat, so far without success.

      PROTECTION OF CROPS (IRELAND).
      Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if lie is aware that agriculturists in Queen's County find it impossible to procure the usual supply of gun cartridges necessary for the protection of their crops against rooks, wood pigeons, and vermin, which are destructive to growing crops at the present time: if he is aware that local licensed dealers in such ammunition find it impossible to get the necessary supplies; and whether he will make arrangements for a sufficient supply being made available?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am informed that farmers in Queen's County have not been refused permits to purchase a reasonable supply of cartridges for the protection of their crops from birds and vermin, and that there is no scarcity of such ammunition. Manufacturers' supplies are short, and I under-

      1261
      stand that in some cases they have been unable to deal with orders, but that necessary supplies can be obtained.

      FOOD PRODUCTION (IRELAND).
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have at present any land on hand for evicted tenants; and, if so, will they take immediate steps to provide Mr. Malone, Dingle, county Kerry, with a farm?
      Mr. DUKE: I cannot yet. add anything to my answer to a question on this subject on the 21st May.
      Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that 350 acres of the lands of Bawn, in the barony of Moydow and county of Long-ford, have been recently seized by the Department of Agriculture for non-compliance with the Regulations for food production in Ireland under the Defence of the Realm Act; whether he is aware that for many years past these lands have been used by the landlord, H. Bruce Armstrong, of county Armagh, as a non-residential grazing farm and let on the eleven months' grazing system, whersas all around it there are numbers of poor fanners and labourers without sufficient land for their subsistence; whether he is aware that these lands were the subject of inspection and previous negotiation by the Estates Commissioners for acquirement for division amongst uneconomic holders in the district; and whether he will urge upon the Estates Commissioners to avail of the present opportunity to enter into negotiations with the landlord, who, it is stated locally, is now willing to soil in order to avoid the penalties incurred under the Defence of the Realm Act, in order to acquire this desirable holding for the relief of congestion in and around this area?
      Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the Department of Agriculture have entered on lands in the townland of Bawn, county Longford, in the occupation of Mr. Charles Webb, and that the holding of Mr. Henry Bruce Armstrong has been listed for inspection, but the question of entry thereon has not yet arisen. There have been proceedings with a view to the sale under the Land Purchase Acts of portion of Mr. Armstrong's property. The estate is on the "all cash" register of direct sales, and has not yet been reached in its order of priority.
      Mr. FARRELL: Am I to understand that there has been inspection by the Estates Commissioners or by the Department?
      Mr. DUKE: An inspection by the Department, I understand.
      Mr. FARRELL:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion the Estates Commissioners got hold of this land with a view to purchase and distribution?
      Mr. DUKE: I said that there had been proceedings with a view to the sale and resale under the Land Purchase Act.
      Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to carry out the latter part of the question, that the Commissioners reopen negotiations as to sale?
      Mr. DUKE: When the matter is in a stage of negotiation it is put on the register of direct claims and has to await its turn of priority. This estate has not been reached in that order of priority.

      BUTTER.
      Mr. KEATINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have arranged for the purchase of quantities of butter in Ireland; if so, from what particular firms purchases have been made and at what price; and whether, before making the arrangements, the different producers were given an opportunity of tendering?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster):I would refer the hon. Member to the written answer which I gave on this subject on the 20th ultimo to the hon. Member for Cavan West.

      PROFITEERING.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the measures being taken against profiteering, only exaggerated profits on food are to be restrained; whether the findings of the Royal Commission, contained in Cd. 8518, of 1917, have been considered; and whether extravagant payments and profits in hutting contracts, raw materials, Army contracts, and directions other than in food supply, will be equally prevented?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, and as regards the last part I would refer the hon.

      1263
      Member to the Memorandum, No. Cd 8447, which was recently handed in to the Public Accounts Committee.

      SUGAR.
      Mr. SCANLANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the inconvenience which is being caused to merchants and to the public in Ireland by the restricted allowance of sugar and the inequality in its distribution, the Government can see their way to at once appoint a sugar controller for Ireland or to establish in Ireland a separate branch of the Sugar Commission, or take other steps in order to redress the existing grievances?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. The question of improving the distribution of sugar throughout the United Kingdom is now under consideration, and I hope to announce at an early date the measures which will be taken with this object.
      Mr. SCANLAN: Arising out of the somewhat unsatisfactory reply, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that some time ago a promise was made from the Treasury Bench that a separate Sugar Commission would be set up in Ireland?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is there any sugar in the country now to distribute?
      An HON. MEMBER: Of course there is, to the brewers.

      MEAT.
      Mr. C. WASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that butchers' meat exposed to all atmospheric conditions and continually picked over is continually exposed for sale and at a relatively high price; and, in view of the fact that meat so exposed cannot be wholesome, will he give the matter his consideration with a view to improving the conditions under which meat is offered?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It has always been the custom in this country for meat to be exposed for sale in open shops. The Food Controller is considering, in consultation with the Local Government Board and with the trade, whether any modification of this practice could be usefully adopted.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the results that have arisen in the meat trade through the refusal of the Board of Trade to permit the men employed in the meat and cold storage trades to be represented in the Department which controls imported meat; that Sir Thomas Robinson has never consulted a single Labour representative connected with the markets or Port of London concerning the disposal of imported meat; that he is interested in meat and shipping; that his administration of meat importation has resulted in large profits for meat profiteers; and whether he will demand powers to overhaul the administration of Sir Thomas Robinson?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): My hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. In all matters concerned with the importation and distribution of meat purchased by the Board of Trade Sir Thomas Robinson acts under the instructions of that Department. In reply to the other points in the question I have to refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Prices and to the answers which have been given in this House to numerous similar questions. I should be pleased to meet my hon. Friend and representatives of the men employed in the meat and cold storage trades in order to hear their representations on this subject.

      MAIZE AND BEANS.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the price paid by the Government for maize bought in South Africa and the price at which it is retailed in this country; and what is the difference in price on beans when commandeered in this country and on their subsequent sale to the public?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not considered desirable in the public interest to disclose the transactions of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies until the total profit and loss can be accurately ascertained. As regards beans, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 11th June to the hon. Member for Dartford. I may add that it is highly improbable that the Government will realise any profit on the whole series of transactions relating to these commodities.

      MILK
      Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are being taken to preserve the milk supply during the coming winter; whether skilled and experienced men are being taken from the service of cowkeepers; whether the present surplus of milk is being dried or otherwise preserved for winter consumption; whether cream con taining boric acid, sold as unsuitable for infants, is still permitted to be sold; and whether the local authorities are being warned of the danger of increased infant mortality if milk shortage increases?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The total number of cows and heifers in milk and in calf, according to the recent agricultural census, considerably exceeds the corresponding number last year. Representations have been made to the War Office on the subject of taking skilled men from the service of cowkeepers. Factories have been urged to use their utmost endeavours to manufacture dried and condensed milk, and monthly returns are required. There is no prohibition of the sale of cream containing boric acid, the bulk of which conies from Ireland; the sale of fresh cream shows a considerable decrease. It is not thought that the local authorities need to be warned of the dangers referred to in the last part of the question.

      BREAD.
      Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the very different qualities of bread now made and of the inferior and unwholesome quality of some of it, he will have the flour supplied to the bakers of an even and equal quality so that bakers should no longer have any excuse for making inferior and unwhole some bread?
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of complaints amongst the poor, who have to depend largely on bread for their diet, that injury is being caused to their health owing to the mixtures used in making the flour; and whether he will take steps to place on the market a more digestible and wholesome flour for the use of the working classes!
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must refer the hon. Members to the answer given on this point yesterday.
      Major HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it would not be possible to have the flour supplies of an even quality?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think, if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer which was given yesterday he will see that it contains all I can say on the subject.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether at present there is any regulation preventing the sale and use of potatoes in shops, clubs, hotels, and other public places; and whether he will consider the advisability, in existing circumstances, of arranging that all restrictions may at once be removed?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The restriction on serving potatoes in public eating places has been repealed by the Public Meals Order (No. 3), made on 3rd July, and potatoes may now be supplied on any day in the week.
      Mr. LOUGH: Do any restrictions remain on the sale or use of potatoes at the present time?
      Mr. BRIDGE MAN: I cannot answer that without notice.

    MINE-LAYING BY NEUTRAL SHIPS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is proposed to make any representations to neutral countries with reference to the laying of mines in seas removed far from the scene of the War, and which it is alleged have been laid by vessels bearing neutral flags, and that damages to the value of any ship and cargo sunk by such mines will be claimed from any country which can be proved to have knowingly allowed such a mine-laying ship to have left its ports?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have every intention of claiming adequate reparation from any neutral country which can be proved to have permitted a vessel to leave its ports in the circumstances mentioned in the question, and I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of making that intention publicly known to those whom it may concern.

    COFFEE (EXCLUSION FROM GERMANY).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Minister of Blockade whether he is aware that there are some thousands of tons of coffee stored at Grimsby, said to have been German-owned and captured; whether any of this coffee is being exported to neutral countries; and if he can give an assurance that none of the coffee so ex ported reaches the enemy?
    Lord R. CECIL: A large amount of coffee is stored at Grimsby which was seized upon the ground that it was believed to be destined for the enemy. There is evidence that some of this coffee is German-owned, and it is proposed to ask for its condemnation in the Prize Court. If the hon. Member is in possession of any reliable evidence on this point, it would be of considerable assistance in the legal proceedings now pending. Three hundred and seventy-five tons of coffee stored at Grimsby have recently been released for shipment to Sweden, under adequate guarantees that none of it will be re-exported to Germany. No part of these 375 tons was German-owned.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the delay in paying Irish teachers the fees earned by them for the teaching of rural science and school gardening; and if arrangements will be made for the payment of these fees to a teacher when his school has been inspected and payment certified?
    Mr. DUKE: Grants for instruction in rural science and horticulture are payable after the close of each school year, ending the 30th June, upon the reports of inspectors of the Department of Agriculture. Payments fire made without delay on receipt of the necessary reports.
    Mr. BYRNEasked whether national teachers in Ireland will be granted an additional war bonus to that received last year, in view of the fact that Civil servants have recently been granted an increase of war bonus, and that the war bonus of 1916 was granted to national teachers on the same scale and conditions sanctioned for Civil servants; and the scale of payments of such bonus and from what date it was intended to make such amounts payable?
    Mr. DUKE: The pay of national school teachers will, I hope, be dealt with by permanent increase upon a scale which will be stated to the House at an early date.

    ASYLUM PENSIONERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will consider the advisability of having a war bonus granted to asylum pensions in Ireland owing to the increased cost of living?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no power to authorise Grants by way of war bonus to pensioned asylums officers. The pensions are paid from local rates.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the date and place of meeting of the Convention?
    Mr. DUKE: These particulars will be announced in course of a few days.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, the Government has taken for the relief of unemployment in Ireland; and if he is aware that the present rates of wages, the conditions of housing, and amount of taxation and unemployment are largely responsible for the discontent now existing in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: To meet the cases of unemployment which were due to restrictions on the output of breweries the Minister of Munitions and the Minister of Labour are offering work for a considerable number of labourers from Dublin, and work is also being offered upon the railway for coal supply which is in course of construction between Athy and the Wolfhill Colliery. What are the causes of such discontent as exists, in Ireland could not be conclusively stated in answer to a question.

    LABOURERS (IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the

    1269
    wages paid to labourers employed by the Irish Lights Commissioners at Kingstown is 22s. with 3s. war bonus; if he is aware that the wages paid do not compare favourably with the wages paid by other employers in the district; if he is aware that this is baby week in Dublin; if he is aware that almost all the labourers in the Irish Lights are married men fond of babies; and if he will say when they will be paid a wage sufficient to keep their families in comfort?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. The wages paid to labourers employed by the Irish Lights Commissioners at Kingstown are as stated. I am informed that they conform to rates current in the district and that whenever the current local rate is advanced the wages paid to the labourers at Kingstown are correspondingly increased. I understand that about 60 per cent, of these labourers are married.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What are the wages paid to labourers similarly occupied in England?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot say from memory. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will inquire.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not be better for the Government to have a standard wage, and not to follow an example set by the sweating employers in Dublin?

    PRISON WARDERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether His Majesty's Government has come to a decision with reference to the allowance of increased remuneration to Irish prison warders; and whether he is now in a position to say whether it is the intention of the Government to place the prison warders in Ireland in a position of equality as regards the remuneration with prison warders in England and Scotland?
    Mr. DUKE: The amendments in the pay of Irish prison warders have been communicated to the officers concerned, and have appeared in the Press. As to the latter part of the question, I would refer to the answer I gave last Thursday to the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether it is the intention to put the prison
    1270
    warders in Ireland on an equality as regards remuneration with prison warders in England and Scotland?
    Mr. DUKE: I told the hon. Member for East Mayo, in the answer which I gave him, the whole question was dealt with by a scheme which was presented some few months ago and which hag been extended within the last two or three weeks in order to meet the promises made on the subject. I cannot add anything to what is conveyed in the answer to that question.
    Mr. SCANLAN: The simple question which I want answered is whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that prison warders in Ireland are entitled to as much per week as prison warders in England and Scotland?
    Mr. DUKE: That is a general principle on which I cannot express an opinion unless a particular case is put to me.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that workers in Ireland are paid by the Government a lesser wage than is paid in England or Scotland, and why should that be so?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state why Mathew Sheridan, of Kilcogy, county Cavan, whose son resides in Granard, has been deprived of an old age pension; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case and direct the Local Government Board to grant this man's application?
    Mr. DUKE: I am making inquiries.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state why the Granard pensions officer, Mr. Tumner, has objected to Mrs. May Farrelly, No. 886, in the Granard station district, being continued on the list of persons entitled to a pension; why the same officer, when the Ballinalee sub-committee granted her 3s., appealed although the woman is now older and poorer than when she first got the pension; and will he request the Local Government Board to reconsider her case and grant her the pension to which she is entitled?
    Mr. DUKE: Inquiries are being made in regard to this case.
    Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when a definite

    1271
    statement will be made on the question of a grant of an all-round flat rate of 2s. 6d. per head to old age pensioners; whether he is aware that this sum has practically been paid to no old age pensioners in county Longford, the mere statement of the pension officers debarring the local committees from granting it; whether he is aware that many deserving cases have been thus shut out; and will he apply the only remedy, to give an all-round flat-rate increase forthwith?
    Mr. DUKE: The question of a general increase of old age pensions is not one with which I can deal as Chief Secretary. Appeals against the decisions of pension officers go to the Local Government Board for Ireland, and in proper eases come under my consideration. The proportion of cases in which the additional pension is granted is at least as large in Ireland as in Great Britain.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Local Government Hoard have practically turned down every appeal to them?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not, know how that may be, but I know the ratio of distribution and allowance, and the result of the comparison is that which I have stated.
    Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Local Government Board says that there is no appeal in these matters?
    Mr. DUKE: I think not, because I have frequently answered questions in this House with regard to the grounds of decisions of appeals.
    Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to press the Local Government Board to look into this matter?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member can undertake to extend any year to twice 385 days, I should be very glad to give him some of the additional days.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many appeals there are?
    Mr. DUKE: I could not possibly.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Are there any?
    Mr. DUKE: I could not say.
    Mr. CULLINAN: When the pension officers take into consideration the rate of
    1272
    pay of dependants of old age pensioners, why do they not take into consideration the increased cost of living?
    Mr. DUKE: As I have already said, the proportions of those additional pensions in Ireland are at least as large, or slightly larger, than they were in Great Britain.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Local Government Board to give their reasons for refusing appeals?
    Mr. DUKE: They always give them when there is an appeal.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether Mr. Clifford Allen is at present under punishment in prison; and, if so, the nature of such punishment; (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Clifford Allen is suffering from consumption, a disease which had developed before his first imprisonment; and what steps have been taken to give Mr. Allen the medical treatment and care essential to his condition?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): This prisoner has been several times punished for persistent refusal to work, but he is not now under punishment, having been admitted yesterday to the prison hospital. He has been specially examined and it is found that he is not suffering from consumption. He shows no signs of active tubercular disease, or of deterioration as a result of imprisonment, but he is of poor physique and gives a history of debility in childhood which may have had tubercular origin. He has been under close medical observation, and will receive every medical attention which his physical state requires.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that Mr. Allen contracted a tuberculous disease as the result of his labours in the slums of Manchester and London, before the War, in the public service?
      Mr. BRACE: It is not tuberculous.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is not this gentleman being punished again and again for some offence, and is not that very improper and very unjust?
      Mr. BRACE: Very proper if the man will not work.
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Commissioners during the last five years have revised or reversed a local decision to punish a prison warder on his appeal; and whether during this period any decision of the Prison Com missioners to punish a warder has been revised or reversed by the Home Secretary for the time being?
      Mr. BRACE: The decision of a Governor in punishing an officer is frequently revised or reversed by the Commissioners. It is open to the Secretary of State, at any time, to disagree with the decision of the Commissioners, and there are from time to time cases in which at his request the Commissioners reconsider the punishments they propose; but the records of such cases could only be ascertained by prolonged research in the files of the Department.
      Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in what respect Israel Bern- hardt, of Hull, a conscientious objector, who was sent from the work centre at Wakefield back to his unit, failed to observe the conditions under which he was released from prison?
      Mr. BRACE: Shortly after his release from prison this man was sent for employment in a quarry, but within a short time the employer returned him, saying he was unable to get any work out of him. He remained at Wakefield for some time under observation; both his industry and his conduct were unsatisfactory. He was then sent out for employment in a fertilizer factory, but within a few days his employer sent him back on the ground that he was altogether idle. In these circumstances the Committee on 28th March requested the War Office to recall the man to his unit.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the proceedings at the Cambridge Appeal Tribunal on 4th June in connection with the case of Mr. Reginald Fenn, who had previously been granted exemption on conscientious grounds by the Cambridge borough local tribunal, but whose exemption was appealed against by the military representative on the ground that, having submitted to a medical examination, this was
      1274
      a proof of his insincerity and was accordingly withdrawn by the Appeal Tribunal; and whether he proposes to take any steps in connection with this matter?
      Mr. FISHER: I am having inquiry made in the matter.

      EXEMPTION CASE.
      Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Walter Williamson, of Peterborough, who was, early in this year, granted by the local tribunal an exemption from military service to the 31st of March last, with leave to apply for a further extension, which decision was reversed by the Northamptonshire Appeal Tribunal on 19th April last upon the appeal of the military representative, on which occasion final exemption was granted to 1st July only, and leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal was refused; whether he is aware of the following facts in connection with this case, namely, that Mr. Williamson is in his forty-second year, that he has a wife and five children, all under twelve years of age, that he is under legal liability to pay his mother an annuity of £250, that he is the sole proprietor of the business of Williamson and Company, manufacturing confectioners, and wholesale agents, carried on at Peterborough, established by his father thirty-five years ago, and conducted by him for the last seventeen years, that this business extends into eleven counties, and is the distributing centre for hundreds of small traders in the eastern counties, that of Mr. Williamson's pre-war staff of seventeen men twelve have been taken for military service, while four have gone into other employments, that his present staff consists of fourteen girls and one carman, aged seventy, that the business is entirely a one-man business, and is absolutely dependent on himself, that there is no other person by whom it could be carried on, nor could it be disposed of, but would have to be closed down if Mr. Williamson is taken for military service, and that it could not be revived by him without difficulty, if at all, on his return from such service; whether, in view of the fact that this case is a similar one to the recent case decided by the Central Appeal Tribunal, and known as Streets' case, being case No. 80 of the printed cases issued by the Local Government Board in this connection, he will consider whether a sufficient reason has been shown under the

      1275
      terms of Regulation 85, Part III. (2) of the Military Service Regulations (Amendment) Order, 1916, for a re-hearing of the case, or for leave to be granted for an appeal to the Central Tribunal; and whether he will indicate to the Northamptonshire Appeal Tribunal the opinion of the Local Government Board to that effect, or take such other steps as may be necessary to secure that justice shall be done?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am making inquiry of the Appeal Tribunal respecting the case.

      MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the general question of the examination by medical boards of men claiming exemption on conscientious grounds; and, in view of the action of certain tribunals, who hold that submission to medical examination is a proof of insincerity, lie will issue a general instruction to tribunals on the subject?
      Mr. FISHER: I do not think it is necessary to issue directions to tribunals in this matter. I have no reason to suppose that the opinion referred to in the hon. Member's question is at all widely held.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: May I ask whether it has in some cases been attended with very serious results to the men concerned?
      Mr. FISHER: I have heard only of one.
      Mr. HARVEY: There is another.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask whether the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the position he now holds was specially appealed to to make it easy for medical examination of those applicants to take place?

      SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (AFTER-WAR CONDITIONS).
      Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken in the case of those of our sailors and soldiers who, on account of the exposure they have gone through in this War, have been told by medical men that it is necessary for them to live in a warm and dry climate, to enable them to emigrate and make a living in Australia, Africa, or New Zealand, where climatic conditions would be suitable?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Empire Settlement Committee is considering this question.

      EXEMPTIONS (PLOUGHMEN).
      Major McMICKINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of a ploughman, who hitherto has been exempted, but who has now received notice to appear before the local tribunal; and whether, bearing in mind the promises that have been made not to take ploughmen from the land, he proposes to take action in this matter?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have asked the Board of Agriculture to keep the case in view.

    SHOPS (COMPULSORY CLOSING).
    Mr. HINDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of extending the compulsory closing Order for shops, which expires on the 30th of September next, the benefit of which has been realised by the majority of traders throughout the country?
    Mr. BRACE: Yes, Sir. The question will be considered in due course, but the Order is a war measure and the action taken must depend on the circumstances as they exist at the time of its expiry.

    FRENCH SUBJECTS IN ENGLAND.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the passage of the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, he proposes to continue to forcibly deport any further French subjects to France in order that they may be conscripted there?
    Mr. BRACE: The legislation in question does not at present apply to French subjects in this country, and my right hon. Friend sees no sufficient reason for making a change in the practice at the present moment.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is not the hon. Member aware that the French have plenty of enemies in front of them, without having enemies behind them in this House?

    PENSIONS APPEAL COMMITTEE.
    Mr. ACLAND ALLENasked the Pensions Minister whether the Pensions Appeal Committee has yet begun to meet; and, if not, can he say when the hearing of appeals will begin?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): It is hoped that the Appeal Tribunal will be in a position to begin its sessions in ten days' time.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I state that I have received letters from men who have appealed, saying that the Committee stated that their appeal has not been sustained?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The appeal has not yet begun. The Appeal Court has not begun its session.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am asking have the men received that answer?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend will send me an example, I will make inquiry.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will.

    HOUSES (SHORTAGE).
    Captain FITZROYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, when making inquiries from the local authorities as to how they propose to meet the shortage of half a million houses which he stated, in his answer to the deputation of the Workmen's National Council, would be required for immediate use after the War, he will also inquire from such local authorities what in their opinion are the chief causes contributing to such shortage?
    Mr. FISHER: Opportunity will be given to local authorities to submit any information or observations bearing upon the question of the shortage of houses in their respective districts.
    Captain FITZROYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any inquiries are being instituted by his Department as to the best way to meet the demand for houses for workers in agricultural districts which will arise if large areas of land are broken up for cultivation; and, if so, will he say what is the nature of such inquiries and' to whom have they been addressed?
    Mr. FISHER: The inquiries which it is proposed to send to local authorities in regard to housing heeds will extend to all rural districts, and will include inquiries as to the extent both of the needs of the area and of the provision which the local authorities will be prepared to make for supplying them. In connection with the general consideration of the housing problem, the very important matter referred to in the question is not being overlooked.

    NAVAL SURGEONS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the position of a naval surgeon, retiring before the War with a gratuity, was as follows: that the Admiralty had no further claim on his services, that, as a voluntary act on his part, he could place his name on an emergency list which, in case of his being called upon to serve, would entitle him to the rate of pay he was receiving when he retired, plus a bonus of 25 per cent., and that for this voluntary act he received no extra gratuity or reward of any kind; whether he is aware that some ten or more naval surgeons who had retired before the War with a gratuity and who had placed their names on the emergency list have been called upon to serve, but are not receiving the pay promised, the Admiralty claiming to deduct, and deducting, from their pay a sum equal to the interest on their gratuity, and will he refer to any Statute, Regulation, or Order in Council made before the War that justifies this; if not, will he at once direct the repayment of the sums illegally deducted with interest at 5 per cent, to these naval surgeons; and will he state on what principle this deduction has been made and the rate of interest taken?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The position of the officer in question is as indicated in the first part of the question. On being called out he receives: (l) the rate of pay earned prior to withdrawal; (2) a bonus of 25 per cent, in lieu of any further retiring allowance. The gratuity paid on withdrawal is in effect a commuted allowance, and is comparable with the annual allowance paid to officers retiring under other conditions. The bonus is paid to both the emergency officer and the retired officer when re-employed, and as the latter has his retir-

    1279
    ing allowance suspended, it is consistent to deduct the annual value of the gratuity received by the former officer. The authorising Regulation is Order in Council, 13th May, 1901, No. 157, under which the Treasury has approved both the payment of the bonus and the deduction referred to. Any doubt as to the legality of the decision regarding the latter would, therefore, be equally applicable to the former. The annual value of the gratuity is calculated on the basis of the cost of an immediate life annuity at the date of withdrawal, under the Post Office annuity table in force at the time.
    Mr. HOHLER: Does the right lion. Gentleman think you ought to give a man a bonus and subsequently charge interest on it when the man rejoins on his own initiative?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The heart of the matter is this: The gratuity is considered to be a commuted allowance. The officer retired on allowance and re-employed got his allowance suspended. So it is deemed equitable to deduct the annual value of the gratuity from the officer retired on the same.
    Mr. HOHLER: Has not the gratuity been used to get a practice?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be glad if my hon. and learned Friend would argue his view, for which I have always much respect, before our Medical Director-General, the Accountant-General, and myself.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether temporary assistant paymasters of the Royal Naval Reserve attached to ships in commission are unable to obtain promotion although doing responsible and good work; whether the Regulations do not permit of promotion being given; and whether he will take steps to amend the Regulations so as to permit of capable and deserving officers who are temporary assistant paymasters receiving promotion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The necessary steps have already been taken to obtain authority for the advancement of temporary assistant paymasters of the Royal Naval Reserve and regulations on the subject will shortly be issued.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have recently granted a commission as tem porary assistant-paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, to an individual who had no previous experience of the Navy, and appointed him to His Majesty's ship "Mars"; whether this newly appointed officer holds the same rank and draws the same pay as those who offered their ser vices at the commencement of the War; and whether he is aware that the man's appointment has been received with feelings of dismay among officers of the Royal Naval Reserve who joined up voluntarily in 1914?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The officer referred to in the first part of the question cannot be identified from the information given. As regards the remainder of the question, all officers entered as assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve, hold the same rank until they attain four years' seniority and draw the same rate of pay, and it cannot be admitted that any feeling should arise because a temporary officer in 1917 should be entered under the same conditions as temporary officers who were entered in 1914.

    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION.
    Commander H. CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers attached to the Royal Naval Division who were given promotion to acting rank before the Royal Naval Division was transferred to the control of the War Office, such promotions to acting rank are subject to cancellation under the War Office Regulation whereby officers who have held acting rank in the field are compelled to revert to their substantive rank upon their return, through sickness or wounds, to depot?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Prior to the transfer of the Royal Naval Division to the control of the War Office, the promotion of officers to acting rank was authorised under the same conditions as are laid down for the Army, namely, during the performance of specified duties. Officers so promoted would therefore automatically revert to their substantive rank on ceasing, from any cause, to perform such duties. The position of such officers of the Royal Naval Division was in no way affected by its transfer to Army control.
    Commander CRAIG: The point I wish to put is the case of the man promoted to acting rank while the Naval Division was under the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Having ceased to perform the duty which he was performing in that acting rank, he would have been reverted by the Admiralty had the Royal Naval Division remained with us. The same thing precisely happens under the War Office.

    PRISONERS OF WAR (PARCELS).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to prevent relatives of British officer prisoners of war from sending parcels direct to such prisoners and to regulate the contents of such parcels; and whether, before any new Regulations become operative, the Government will issue a White Paper giving the details of the proposed change and the reasons for such change, and will give the House an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the proposals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Regulations on this subject will be published immediately. They will not, however, come into force until 1st August, and there will certainly be an opportunity on the next Vote of Credit of discussing the matter in this House during the present month.
    Colonel BURN: May I ask why it is necessary to go against the wishes of many officers who are prisoners of war in Germany, and who infinitely prefer the present system to be carried on, and have asked that it should?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we had better wait and see the exact Regulations. This has not been done without very careful thought by the War Office and, indeed, by the Cabinet.
    Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that the arrangements of the Central Committee in London are run on business lines, and that those parcels will get delivered satisfactorily to the prisoners in Germany?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I agreed to the decision after hearing the case in the belief that would happen.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Report of the Joint Committee on the Central Committee's work, and is he satisfied that it
    1282
    is desirable to hand over the care of our officers to the Central Committee, who are shown in this Report to have inflicted such hardship and suffering on our soldier prisoners of war in Germany?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend put a question of that kind the other day. I do not agree with him as to the incompetence of that Committee.
    Mr. FABER: May I ask whether under the interpretation of the new rules this old arrangement still holds good?
    Mr. PETO: May I ask if the new Regulations; will apply to officers of the mercantile marine, and have the associations which have hitherto catered to their needs with the utmost satisfaction been consulted before the arrangements were made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a new point to me.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the general dissatisfaction caused by the non-reception of parcels by prisoners of war since the. New Regulation made last December; whether the British representatives at The Hague are fully informed as to this; and whether they will endeavour to obtain per mission for parcels to be sent direct by relatives as previously?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am aware that there has been dissatisfaction on this subject, but the whole question has been fully investigated by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to whose Report I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend. The British delegates at The Hague were fully conversant with the matter. The former system of allowing prisoners to receive parcels from private sources led to much inconvenience and abuse, and it is not proposed to revert to it.
    Sir C. SEELY: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer take note of that in regard to his answer to a previous question as to making some arrangements for officer prisoners of war, seeing the complete failure with regard to soldier prisoners of war?
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Can my hon. Friend now tell me whether he has received the Report of the Joint Committee, and whether the recommendations of the Committee to remove the grievances under

    1283
    which our prisoners of war are now suffering are going to be adopted; whether, in regard to that Joint Committee, it is not necessary to say whether or not its Report has been adopted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

    MESOPOTAMIA COMMISSION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he has considered the method of Ministers dealing with vital public matters by sending communications of a private character; whether this practice, shown by the Mesopotamia Commission Report to be dangerous, is being continued; whether he can announce a break with the past practice in this connection; (2) whether any person whose action has come under the strictures of the Mesopotamia Commission has resigned or has been called on to submit reasons why his services should not be dispensed with; (3) whether the War Cabinet intends to leave the position of persons censured in the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission unchanged until the House has debated the Report next week?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that these questions can best be dealt with in the Debate.
    Mr. KING: As a matter of fact does not this practice relate to a great many other things besides the Indian Government and the Mesopotamia Commission, and in view of the fact that it is a general practice with other Departments will the Government consider the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that it is in other Departments. We should certainly consider it if it were.
    Mr. KING: Is it not a fact in the Foreign Office, and what about Lord Hardinge's letter to Sir George Buchanan?

    AMNESTY.
    Mr. CAREWasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to extend the same amnesty to persons other than Irish rebels, who were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment or otherwise by court-martial; and, if not, will he say why this cannot be done?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know to whom the hon. Member refers.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information showing that the exact time and place chosen by the enemy for recent air raids over England followed upon information supplied by enemy agents in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not the case that on the occasion of the recent attack upon London the conditions for attack were much more favourable than they would have been immediately preceding and immediately after. Would the right hon. Gentleman also say whether it is not the case that on the day of the Harwich raid an important movement of troops was taking place immediately before the attack?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: All the answer I can give is that the Department concerned has no evidence such as my right hon. Friend's question suggests.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement in a London paper to the effect that on the occasion of the recent raid on London all the machines which could have met the attack were removed, and that General French had complained to the War Office that that had taken place; 'and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is a rumour or whether there is any truth in it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In regard to that, the subject has been discussed at a meeting with General French, at which I was present, and I am quite certain that nothing of that kind occurred.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that it is not the case that important squadrons were away on that particular day and were subsequently brought back?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say as to that. The question was whether General French had complained?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: What is the answer to my question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know.

    PUBLIC MONEY (ADVANCES).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he can state approximately the amount of public money advanced to private concerns since the commencement of the War and how much, if any, has been repaid?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to my right hon. Friend's question involves the collection of particulars from a large number of Departments. I shall, therefore, be obliged if he will be good enough to repeat the question in a fortnight's time.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL).
    Mr. J. Mr. HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to proceed with the taking control of the liquor traffic in the present Session?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government do not at present propose to take control, and, as I have already stated, they will not in any circumstances do so until the subject has been discussed by the House of Commons.

    EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYED. (WHITLEY REPORT).
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the interest aroused by the issue of the Whitley Report on the relations of employers and employed and the importance of having it widely circulated, he will give instructions for copies of this Report to be sent to the libraries of all free libraries and to representative organisations of working men, such as the Workers' Educational Association?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite agree with my hon. Friend as to the importance of obtaining as wide a circulation as possible for the Report. The Ministry of Labour has already distributed several thousand copies, and I will certainly consider how far it is possible to adopt his suggestion. I would point out that anyone can procure a copy through a bookseller for Id.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Can my hon. Friend say why a Report of this kind was not circulated in the ordinary way with the Votes?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. WARDLE: Why was it held back from March before being circulated?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Report was not in the hands of the Labour Ministry to deal with at the date named.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Prime Minister whether the Whitley Report on the relations of employers and employed is being sent to the heads of Government Departments employing a large amount of labour; and whether they are being requested to consider it and report to the Government on the suggestions contained in the Report in the same way that employers' associations are being re quested to do?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Report has been circulated to the leading employers' associations and trade unions with a view to ascertaining whether the scheme proposed in it is likely to prove generally acceptable to industry. In the event of the Government being satisfied of this and adopting the scheme, the question of applying it to Government undertakings would obviously have to be considered; but it has not been thought necessary to approach particular Government Departments in the matter until the opinion of the country has been ascertained on the practicability of the scheme proposed.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be advisable to approach Government Departments employing a large amount of labour, seeing that employers' associations in the country are being asked to consider the Report?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it would be better to await until the general views of industry have been ascertained.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any earthly reason why the Government Departments should always be last?
    Mr. HOGGE: Can he give us any other reasons?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question which should be addressed to each Department to whom the hon. Member refers.

    NATIONAL UNION OF UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that dissatisfaction

    1287
    is felt by uncertificated teachers in elementary schools at the omission to appoint a member of the National Union of Uncertificated Teachers on. the Departmental Committee recently appointed to determine the construction of the scales of salaries for teachers in these schools; and, having regard to the number of uncertificated teachers, will he add a representative of such teachers to the Committee to safeguard their interests?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lewis): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The President of the Board of Education has received representations from the National Union of Uncertificated Teachers on this subject, but he is not prepared to make any further appointments to the Committee He is satisfied that any representations made to the Committee by or on behalf of the uncertificated teachers will receive careful and impartial consideration.
    Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department prepared to leave quite unrepresented on this Committee 57,000 of the worst paid teachers in the elementary schools?
    Mr. LEWIS: That has been fully considered, and any representations that may be made on the part of these teachers to the Committee will, as I have already said, be carefully considered.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to this Departmental Committee carefully to consider the claims of these uncertificated teachers?
    Mr. LEWIS: I have not the least doubt but that will be done.
    Mr. WHITE HO USE: Are not certain members of this Committee put down as representing certain classes of teachers? Why, therefore, should the same representation be denied to the teachers referred to in the question?
    Mr. LEWIS: Members of the Committee are not necessarily there in a representative capacity.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the hon. Gentleman expect these tens of thousands of underpaid teachers willingly to accept a decision given by a Committee on which they are unrepresented?
    Mr. LEWIS: I shall convey all these representations to my right hon. Friend.

    OUTPUT OF BEER.

      MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the discontent in all the large towns, and more especially in towns like London, Barrow-in-Furness, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, and Nottingham, because of the shortage of beer; if he can state whether the Government will consider the advisability of increasing the barrel-age from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000; and if he is now prepared to make a statement on the matter?
      Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that in some parts of Surrey working men have had to pay Is. a quart for their beer during the hay harvest; and whether this price is supposed to be justified by war conditions; and, if not, what steps he intends taking in the matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There is always a greater consumption of beer in the summer months, and the Government are aware of the difficulties caused by the shortage of beer in some of the large centres of population and for harvest purposes, and they have decided to permit the brewing during the quarter ending the 30th September next of an additional amount of beer not exceeding 33⅓ per cent, of the amount already allowed for that quarter. The permission will be given on certain conditions for securing a reduction in the gravity of a considerable proportion of the total amount of beer brewed and for putting a share of the extra barrelage at the disposal of the Food Controller for distribution to munition areas and to agricultural districts for the harvest. These conditions will be contained in the Order allowing the increase which is to be issued by the Food Controller forthwith.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government have decided to change the total barrelage brewed for the year from 10,000,000 barrels or does it simply mean that there is going to be brewed more beer during the summer and less during the winter, so as to keep the total at 10,000,000 barrels?
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, how it is that a teetotaler caught your eye first?
      Mr. DEVLIN: Not being a teetotaler, may I say a word? Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the effect of lowering the gravity of the additional beer to be brewed will be seriously damaging to the Irish brewing trade, as no stout or porter can be brewed at the suggested new gravity; and whether, under these circumstances, he will arrange that the proportion of the additional beer which may be brewed in Ireland may be of such a gravity as to enable the Irish brewers to retain the distinctive quality of their product?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. L. Jones), the decision of the Government does mean that the total barrelage will be increased by the increase permitted. In respect to the second question, the proposal does not interfere with existing brewing arrangements. It gives the option of increasing the amount, if the gravity can be reduced, of a certain proportion of the beer brewed. I hope that Irish brewers will be able to take advantage of this option, and the hon. Member will be better able to judge after he has seen the Order which will be issued this week.
      Mr. G. FABER: Will the malt now in stock be sufficient for the proposed increased barrelage?
      Sir J. D. REES: Does my right hon. Friend's first reply mean that anything that is added to the quantity will be taken from the strength? If so, does he think that is likely to allay the existing discontent on this subject?
      Mr. C. ROBERTS: Is it intended to use any additional supplies of sugar or any additional supplies of grain for this purpose, and does the right hon. Gentleman mean now to revise the abatement of the Licence Duty?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend asks if there is sufficient malt for this purpose. There is. As regards the last question, the subject was raised in Debate, and I then pointed out that the remission was not based exclusively on this consideration. We do not propose to make any other change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sugar!"] I fancy it will not be possible to brew a larger quantity of beer without some increase of sugar. [HON. MEMBEBB: "Grain!"] No more grain—only malt. As regards the question of my hon. Friend
      1290
      (Sir J. D. Rees), my information is that it is quantity more than quality which is lacking at present.
      Mr. MOONEY: Arising out of the answer to my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin), can the right hon. Gentleman state what the gravity will be for the new beer? Is he aware that no Irish beer can be brewed under 7?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer questions about details, as to which hon. Members will have to wait for the Order.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is no sugar used for this purpose in Ireland.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give us to understand that his statement would be of such a character that Members would have an opportunity of discussing it?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be feasible to give an answer including the details. We must wait for the Order. After that the subject can be discussed, if desired.
      Mr. DEVLIN: When will the Order be issued?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: This week.
      OTHER MEMBERSrose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The thirst for information is so great that further questions should be put down.
      Mr. L. JONES: (at the conclusion of Questions) I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the anouncement of a change of policy on the part of the Government in allowing an increase of 33⅓ per cent, in the output of beer, thereby causing a further drain on the limited supply of sugar in the country."
      The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, not less than forty Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight o'clock this evening.

      TOBACCO DUTY (REBATE).
      Mr. BOWERMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to prevent displacement of labour in the

      1291
      trade through the non-withdrawal of tobacco from bond until the reduced duty becomes operative, he will allow a rebate on tobacco taken out of bond between now and the 16th of July?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As at present advised, I do not anticipate that any serious interruption of manufacture is likely to occur, but the Tobacco Control Board, which is in daily consultation with representatives of all branches of the trade, will consider the question whether any rebate on tobacco taken out of bond before July 16th is required.

      SUPER TAX (FOUR PER CENT. WAR LOAN).
      Mr. FELLasked at what rate interest is to be calculated for the purposes of Super-tax on the Four per Cent. War Loan issued free of Income Tax; and, as an example, what will be the return for Super-tax purposes of the income from an investment of £10,000 in this loan yielding an income of £400 free of Income Tax?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As stated in the War Loan prospectus, income derived from dividends on the £4 per Cent. War Loan, 1929–1942, will be treated, for the purposes of Super-tax, "as if the amount received represented the net income after deduction of Income Tax at the full n9rmal rate." For the present year the full normal rate of Income Tax is 5s. in the £ and, therefore, a net dividend of £400 should be returned for purposes of assessment to Super-tax at £533 6s. 8d.

      PREMIUM BONDS.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an early opportunity for discussion in this House of the question of an issue of premium bonds or, if that is not immediately possible, whether the Government will appoint a Parliamentary committee to consider and report upon the subject?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is in the negative. I shall consider the suggestion made in the second part.

      MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS (PRISONERS OF WAR).
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether officers of the mercantile marine, prisoners, have until recently been treated by the Germans on the same footing as officers of the other Services; whether now the Admiralty have refused to become responsible for the 100 marks monthly for messing expenses; and, if so; will he take immediate steps to cancel such instruction?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the First Lord yesterday, in reply to two other similar questions on this subject.

      ETHER POISONING (CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION).
      Mr. KEATINGasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that Daniel Baker, of High Street, Graigue-namanagh, county Kilkenny, died on 1st February, 1917, as the result of ether poisoning incurred while working in the employment of Hill Factory (lately Nobel Explosive Factory), Pembrey, Carmarthen; that a coroner's jury found that the ether poisoning was the result of misadventure; than Daniel Baker left a widow and seven children dependent upon him; that an application for £150 compensation for the said widow and children has been refused on the grounds, as alleged, that the poisoning was deceased's own fault; that the refusal was persisted in after applicant's solicitor had drawn the attention of the Ministry of Munitions to the verdict of the coroner's jury; and that Mary Baker and her children are at present depending upon charity and are appealing to charity to assist them to bring a claim for compensation before the arbitrator under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the county of Carmarthen; whether it is his intention to oppose the claim: and whether, in all the circumstances, he will in the public interests meet this claim without delay?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The verdict of the coroner's jury was that the cause of death was syncope

      1293
      due to having by misadventure taken a quantity of ether. With regard to the remainder of the question a post-mortem examination, made by two doctors, showed that Baker had died as the result of drinking ether, and not as the result of the in-halation of ether fumes. The death could not be regarded as the result of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the man's employment, and liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, was consequently denied.

    MUNITIONS.

      BUILDING CONTRACTS.
      Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the National Conciliation Board, consisting of employers and operatives, gave a decision in May, 1916, as to the War bonus to be paid in the building trade for the duration of the War and nine months after; that contracts with his Department were entered into on this basis, and that subsequently, on 14th May last, the Government arbitrator granted a second war bonus to be paid in addition to the war bonus settled by the National Conciliation Board; and whether his Department will take these circumstances into consideration and grant a proportionate increase in the contract price of contracts entered into subsequent to May, 1916?
      Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS: While the award of 14th May, 1917, cannot in itself be regarded as sufficient to justify, apart from other considerations, an increase in contract price in respect of contracts entered into by the Ministry, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider claims from contractors, on termination of contracts, if the contractors can prove that, as an effect of the award, they have been deprived of reasonable profit on the contracts in question.

      WORKERS' HOLIDAYS.
      Mr. FELLasked the Minister of Munitions if he can make any further statement respecting the holidays proposed for workers in munition factories and on other war work; if the dates of such holidays can be fixed beforehand so as to enable satisfactory arrangements to be made; and if special trains can be arranged to take- at least some of them to the seaside to enable them to do better and more work during the coming months?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to his question of the 13th June. Since that date my right hon. Friend has caused a notice to be issued to the Press expressing his desire that the holidays should be taken at the customary dates. These dates are generally well known in the various districts. As regards the last part of the question, the railway companies are taking steps to provide the greatest travelling facilities possible in the present circumstances.
      Mr. FELL: Do these holidays mean one day or holidays of ten days or a fortnight?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: They vary according to the districts. In some places they run to as long as a fortnight.

      KENNET AND AVON CANAL.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps are going to be taken to find labour for canal barges on the Kennet and Avon Canal or to utilise this canal in any way during the War?
      Mr. G. ROBERTS: As the hon. Gentleman was informed on the 21st June, the Board of Trade are in communication with the Great Western Railway Company in regard to certain suggestions which have been made, and I hope to be in a position shortly to reach a decision in the matter.

    OFFICERS AND MEN INTERNED IN GERMANY.

      ALLOWANCES TO DEPENDANTS.
      Mr. PETOasked what decision has been arrived at with regard to the allowance made to dependants of merchant service officers and seamen taken prisoner from British ships interned at enemy ports at the outbreak of the War?
      Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am glad to be able to say that it has been decided to place the dependants of officers and men interned in Germany in the same position, as regards payments under the Government scheme, as the dependants of officers and men who have lost their lives through enemy action.
      Mr. CURRIE: Will that provision be retrospective, and, if so, from what date?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I had not contemplated. being pressed beyond the concession made, which comes into operation forthwith.

    KETTERING PITS (DISCHARGE OF MEN).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a petition was sent by the Midland district secretary to the National Union of General Workers in the early part of March to Mr. G. Pain, manager of the Glendon Ironstone Pits, Kettering, on behalf of the men employed by the firm; if he is aware that on 9th March a similar petition was sent to the same firm on behalf of the men employed at Little Irchester Ironstone Pits; if he is aware that both petitions have been ignored by the management; that on 11th May an arbiter was appointed to deal with the petitions; and that on 36th May the case was heard; if he is aware that, after the men's case was heard, the management commenced to discharge some of the men and that the men handed in their notices as a protest against the management for dismissing some of the men; and, seeing that the arbiter advised the men to withdraw their notices, but that the management refused to allow the notices to be withdrawn unless the men left their trade union and did not ask for further increases in wages, whether he intends taking any action in the matter against the proceedings of the management of the firm?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the position is as follows: The arbitrator appointed heard these two cases on 16th May, and the hearing was adjourned with a view to a settlement in the one case and to a further hearing in the other; after the hearing on the 16th May, four of Messrs. Pain's men were discharged for, it is alleged, not obeying the instructions of the foreman; no application was made by the men from either quarry to the arbitrator to continue the hearing or issue an award; but the arbitrator, on learning that the men had given notice, appealed to the union to withdraw the notices. This was done in both cases, but in the case of Messrs. Pain there seems to have been some misunderstanding. The arbi-
    1296
    trator immediately appointed a day (Monday, 2nd July) to proceed when the men's complaint as to notices was brought to his attention. The allegation that the management refused to allow the notices to be withdrawn unless the men left their trade union, and did not ask for a further increase in wages, was denied by Messrs. Pain, and the arbitration was proceeded with. The arbitration has been held, and I understand that the award will be issued almost immediately.

    BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. EUGENE WASON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any change has taken place in the membership of the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland for the purposes of the Representation of the People Bill.
    Mr. MUNRO: One of the Commissioners for Scotland, Sir James Patten-MacDougall, has, unfortunately, met with an accident which at present confines him to his room. In these circumstances, I have thought it desirable, after consultation with Mr. Speaker and the Home Secretary, and in view of the necessity of early meetings of the Commission in London, to add a member with special knowledge of Scotland to the Commission. I have accordingly appointed Mr. Hay Shennan, Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire, who has held legal office in various parts of Scotland, and who is a well-known authority on the subject of boundaries, to be a member of the Commission.
    Mr. GULLAND: Is there nobody in Scotland besides lawyers?
    Mr. MUNRO: The fact that my hon. Friend has put this question supplies the answer to it.

    BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS (SCOTLAND).

      Sanatorium Benefit (Queen's County).
      Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the grants made to the Queen's County Insurance Committee for sanatorium benefit for insured persons are inadequate and have been decreasing annually for the past five years; if he is aware that the reduction of the grants has deprived insured persons of benefits to which they were entitled; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
      Mr. DUKE: The returns of expenditure made by county councils in connection with tuberculosis schemes indicate that there is a falling-off in the estimated receipts from the Insurance Committees in respect of the treatment of insured and exempt patients in the current year as compared with last year. The consequent deficit will fall equally on the Exchequer Maintenance Grant and on the local rates. The question of grants for sanatorium benefit can only be dealt with by the National Health Insurance Commission.

      Pupil Teachers (Ireland).
      Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether in England grants from Imperial sources are paid to local authorities for the instruction given to pupil teachers; whether no such grant has been paid in Ireland since 1900; whether, as a result, the number of men candidates for the training colleges has seriously decreased; and will he provide for special payment for this work in the future?
      Mr. DUKE: The Commissioners of National Education have no information as to grants made by the Board of Education for the instruction of pupil teachers in primary schools in England. Gratuities used to be paid to teachers in Ireland for instruction given to monitors; but the Regulation authorising these payments was withdrawn in 1900. I am considering whether they can be reintroduced.

      Evicted Tenants (Moatavally, County Longford).
      Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the criminal proceedings instituted at last Longford Quarter Sessions against Bernard Curran, of Moatavally, Coolamber, County Longford, by the Crown for alleged forcible entry into a farm and house from which he had been evicted; whether the County Court judge adjourned his decision in the case to the October Sessions in order to have a settlement come to between the parties; whether, in pursuance of the suggestion of the judge, he is aware that an hon. Member of this House, the Member for North Longford, went to Dublin to the agent's office and tendered three years' rent and costs to the agent, in order to secure the reinstatement of Curran, giving at the same time a guarantee for the future prompt payment of the rent; whether this offer was
      1298
      refused by Mr. H. B. Stanley, who stated the case was now in the hands of the Crown and he would not interfere; and whether, in view of the evident intention of Mr. Stanley to exterminate this man, he will direct that further criminal proceedings against Curran be abandoned, and let Mr. Stanley pursue his legal remedy, if he has any, on the civil side of the Court at his own expense?
      Mr. DUKE: The case is sub judice, and I cannot intervene.
      Mr. FARRELL: The point of the question is, will the Government exercise its power so that the Crown should not be made a party to what is really a civil action?
      Mr. DUKE: These are legal proceedings, and they must take their course.
      Mr. FARRELL: Did not the chairman of Quarter Sessions adjourn the case to enable a settlement to be reached?
      Mr. DUKE: I cannot help it if the parties do not settle.
      Mr. FARRELL: There will be trouble about it, and plenty of it.

      Irish Land Commission.
      Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when it is proposed to fill the vacancy in the Irish Land Commission created by the death of the Right Hon. W. F. Bailey, Estates Commissioner; whether it was provided that there should be at least three such Commissioners; whether he is aware of the fact that neither of the two remaining Commissioners is a Catholic; whether the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Beard, was immediately filled by the appointment of Mr. Greene, and that created by the retirement of Mr. Alexander, solicitor, by the appointment of Mr. Hare; and if he will state why a Catholic was not eligible for either of these appointments?
      Mr. DUKE: The vacancy in the Commission will be filled in due course. The vacancies in question on the staff of the Commission were filled by promotion in the office in the manner mentioned. There is no disqualification on grounds of religion either in law or, so far as I am concerned, in practice.
      Mr. DEVLIN: I hope the practice will be changed.

      Education (Scotland).
      Sir EDWARD PARROTTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will indicate the methods adopted by the Scotch Education Department for the purpose of ascertaining the views of non-official educationists and administrators in Scotland with regard to matters which directly affect the work of the schools and are sub sequently to be embodied in circulars, minutes, and other documents of a like character.
      Mr. MUNRO: It is impossible within the limits of an answer to a question to detail the means which the Scotch Education Department take to ascertain the views of bodies and persons when they think it necessary to do so. I may say, however, that there is frequent communication between the Department and school boards or associations of school boards and associations of teachers. Representations from these bodies, or from members of the public, receive careful consideration. It is the practice of the Department, before making any changes of special importance, to ascertain the views of those concerned, either by means of conferences or by the issue of Regulations, etc., in draft form for consideration before they are finally adopted.
      Sir E. PARROTTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will explain the exact function of the Committee of Council of Education in Scotland (commonly known as "My Lords"); how frequently this body meets for educational business; and also the date of its last meeting?
      Mr. MUNRO: I must refer my hon. Friend to the Education (Scotland) Acts for a full statement of the functions of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education in Scotland, whose correct designation, as given in Section 1 of the Act of 1872, is the Scotch Education Department. As in the case of other Government Departments similarly constituted, the business of the Department is transacted as a rule by the responsible Minister, who in this case, in accordance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Secretary for Scotland Act, 1885, is the Secretary for Scotland for the time Toeing. It is not necessary that the Committee as a whole should meet frequently, but individual members are often in consultation. The last formal meeting was held in 1913.
      Sir E. PARROTT: Are we to take it that it is like Mrs. Harris: "There ain't no sich person"?
      Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that some years ago meetings of that Committee were frequently held, that the minutes were preserved, and is there any reason why those meetings should not now continue?
      Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is that he is quite correct; with regard to the last part, I should require time to consider it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: May I ask what business will be taken next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we propose to take the Home Office Vote;
  On Tuesday and Wednesday the Committee stage of the Corn Production Bill;
  And on Thursday the Mesopotamia Report.
  On Monday I shall announce the business for Friday next.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: On what motion will the Debate on the Mesopotamia Report be taken? Will it follow the usual precedents?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I fancy that will be the case.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before we take the Debate on the Mesopotamia Report, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of the action the Government propose to take in consequence of that Report?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the House will realise that the Government cannot take action without very careful thought— because everything is involved in the case of those individuals concerned. We are considering it, and I do not know whether it will be possible to give any indication before the Debate, but we shall do so then.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it not be better to have the Debate adjourned until we have had a statement from the Government as to what course they are going to take; otherwise the Debate will wander over large sections of opinion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think there is any danger of that happening because some Member of the Government will speak very early in the Debate, and give an indication of what it is proposed to do.
  Mr. G. FABER: If the Debate be not concluded on Thursday will there be a further opportunity for Debate?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am giving Thursday for the Debate, and I hope that will be sufficient. Of course, it will be a question for the House.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Finance Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Resolved, "That this House do sit Tomorrow."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

    PRIVATE MEMBERS' RIGHTS.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I desire to bring before you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the rights of private Members to ask questions concerning the actions of Royal Commissions or Commissioners and Committees. It will be within your recollection, Sir, that I raised this question on the 27th of November last year. At that time I had not given you notice, and, therefore, I did not use the considered precedents which I had in my pocket. On Monday I went to the Table, and asked to whom I should address a question concerning Mesopotamia—as to why Sir William Meyer had not given evidence before that Commission—and I was told that I could not address it to any Minister, nor could I address any question to any member of the Commission. The precedents which I rely on are scattered over a long period, from 1858 to 1872, and I will summarise them as briefly as possible. I have already sent you a copy of them. On 23rd March, 1858, a question was asked as to the recommendations a Committee intended to make. That question was addressed to the Chairman. On 12th March, 1868, a question was asked as to the progress a Commission had made, how often they had met, and such particulars as the member of the Commission could supply. On 30th June, 1870, a question was asked of a Member who some days before had presented a Petition, in which charges were made against a judge. A question was also asked of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions as to the course they intended to take. My final precedent, which I will quote to the House, is of 25th May, 1871. A Royal Commissioner was asked:
    "Whether it is the fact, that the gentleman entrusted with the drawing up of the report on the Pottery Department of the International Expedition of 1871 is a member or employé of one of the principal exhibiting firms, and, if so, whether the Royal Commissioners will allow the fact to be stated in the report on the subject."
    There was a very full reply given to that question. I quite recognise that asking

    1323
    questions of Commissioners is open to abuse, but Mr. Disraeli said, "There are no indiscreet questions, there are only-indiscreet answers," and I venture to say that the abuse which might result from this House not having any control over Commissioners might be even greater than the abuse of asking questions of Commissioners or Ministers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is perfectly true that in old days there was not so much rigidity about questions as there is now. There were not so many questions, and it was not so necessary to be so strict. Fifty years ago there were only a very few questions asked in the House, and questions to members of Royal Commissions and even of Committees were no doubt permitted. The last precedent which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is able to quote is forty-five years old. During the last five or six Parliaments no question has been allowed to members of Royal Commissions or of Statutory Commissions or of Committees in this House, and the reason is pretty obvious. In the case of Royal Commissions, the Commissioners are appointed with the duty of inquiring and reporting to His Majesty, and it would be very improper if they gave information to this House before they had reported to His Majesty. The same may also be said with regard to Statutory Commissions up to the time that the Commission has concluded its labours and reported. It would also be very undesirable to extend the practice for this reason. It does not necessarily follow that there is any Member of the House on the Commission. It may be that now and again on some of these Commissions which are appointed there are Members of the House, but that is quite a fortuitous matter, and it is better, I think, to follow the rules which obtain with regard to our Select Committees. Once any matter has been referred to a Select Committee, no questions are permitted until the Committee has reported. Of course, when the Debate comes on, it will be open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put any question he pleases to any members of the Commission who happen to be present, but to allow questions to appear on the Paper addressed to members of Royal Commissions would be an innovation which would be quite contrary to the practice which has obtained for the last forty-five years.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not possible to make an arrangement by which one of the Ministers acts as a post office for the Chairman of the Commissioners and answers questions such as when the Commission is likely to report?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Take the very question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to put. How would it be possible for a Minister to obtain an answer? The Commission is>functus officio. The Commissioners are gone. They are dispersed to the four corners of the country. They would all have to be summoned together again to consider the question propounded by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to why a particular individual was not called. There might be half-a-dozen of them and it is really impracticable after the Commission has concluded its labours to call them together again for such a purpose.
    Mr. LOUGH: I would like to ask for a little further information on one point. You said that the practice which obtained with regard to Select Committees in this House might be followed, and that the proper time to ask questions was when the matter came up for Debate. I wish to ask whether your ruling goes so far that no questions can be asked by this House with regard to Committees and Commissions which are not of that nature, but which have been appointed without the consent and sometimes without the knowledge of this House, and whose proceedings the Government may arrange shall not formally come up for Debate. I mean Royal Commissions or Departmental Committees appointed by the Government.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister is responsible for the work of any Departmental Committee; with regard to Royal Commissions, as I have said, they are appointed by His Majesty, and it is their duty to report to His Majesty. Until they have reported, I do not think that questions should be permitted in this House to any members of such Commissions who happen to be Members of this House, and there is no Minister responsible. Questions are sometimes put to Ministers asking when a Royal Commission is likely to-report, and he ascertains the answer. Obviously, there is no objection to that, but it would be an objectionable practice to ask questions of members of Royal Commissions who merely by chance happen to be Members of this House.
    Mr. LOUGH: Has it not been the universal custom in this House for the Home Secretary to answer any question which is in order with regard to the proceedings of a Royal Commission?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have just said that seems to be reasonable, and that there is no objection to it.
    Sir J. D. REES: In what respect does a Member of this House who happens to be a member of a Royal Commission differ so far as asking him questions is concerned from a private Member? I ask this question because in 1906 questions were allowed by you and were put upon the Paper addressed to private Members asking what action they intended to take in respect of Motions which they had upon the Paper. Perhaps you remember the facts.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is all the difference in the world. We have always allowed questions to private Members as to what procedure they intend to follow with regard to any Bill that they have introduced or with regard to any Motion of which they have given notice. That has always been permitted, and I hope it will always be permitted. The circumstances are wholly different with regard to the action of a Commission of which "they may happen to form part.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I want to ask how far your ruling goes. These Royal Commissions report to His Majesty, and for His Majesty's acts the Prime Minister and the Government are responsible. I want to know whether, if one of these Commissions acts notoriously in contravention of the general feeling of this House, ft would be impossible for any Member of this House to ask the Prime Minister a question as to the action of such Royal Commission?
    4.0 P.M
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the House has any knowledge of the action of the Royal Commission until the Royal Commission has completed its labours and reported. When it has reported it is certainly perfectly open to any Member to ask questions in debate. All I am saying is that, during the sitting of the Commission, it is not open to Members to put down upon the Paper questions addressed to Members of the House who happen to be Commissioners with regard to their work.
    Sir C. WARNER: I only wanted to ascertain whether we have the right to question Members of the Government who are responsible for the appointment of a Commission.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 3rd July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Continuance of Certain Belief from. Income Tax.)
    The provisions of Sections twenty-nine, thirty, and forty-three of the Finance Act, 1916 (which give relief from Income Tax in certain cases for the current Income Tax year), shall have effect as if herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the Income Tax year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seventeen:
    Provided that—

    (a) for the words from "and in calculating," to the end of Sub-section (2) of the said Section thirty, there shall be substituted the words "and in calculating the earned income on which relief is to be given under this Section the deductions required to be made from earned income under Sub-section (2) of Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1907, as amended by any other Act, shall not be made from the pay unless and except in so far as the amount of those deductions exceeds the aggregate amount of the earned income other than the pay and of the unearned income; and

    (b) the said Section thirty, as so amended, shall apply to any person who during the current Income Tax year has served, or serves, for not less than three months as master or a member of the crew of any ship or fishing boat as it applies to any of the persons mentioned in that Section.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

    Brought up, and read the first and second time [3rd June.]
    Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask you, Sir, in view of the fact that the Adjournment of the House is to be moved this evening, whether the arrangement which I understand was arrived at the other night that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill

    1327
    was to be finished to-night, will hold good, and whether the Government propose to go on with it after eleven o'clock tonight?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter under my control. It may conduce to the brevity of speeches.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, after the word "the" ["relief from Income Tax in certain cases for the current Income Tax year "], to insert the word "then." This word was omitted in the Clause as set up by the printer.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add
    "(c) the said Section thirty, as so amended shall apply to any person in receipt of a pension granted in respect of death, wounds or disablement resulting from the present War."
    The object of this Amendment is to make the provisions of Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1916, apply to the cases of all persons who are in receipt of pensions granted in respect of death, wounds or disablement resulting from the present War. I had put down an Amendment in the form of a new Clause, which also appeared on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. E. Griffith), the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) and other hon. Members of the Committee. With regard to that Clause, which would have provided that pensions for wounds, death or disablement incurred in the present War should be exempted entirely from Income Tax, I received an intimation the night before last from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not be able to see his way to accept it. I therefore now ask for a more modest measure of relief in respect of these pensions for death, wounds or disablement. I fully appreciate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have said with regard to these exemptions that I was asking him to alter one of the fundamental bases of the Income Tax, because I am aware that Schedule E of the Act of 1842 provides for the collection of Income Tax, at that time at the rate of 7d. in the pound, upon every public office or employment of profit and upon every annuity, pension or stipend payable by Her Majesty out
    1328
    of the Public Revenue of the United Kingdom. Therefore, as that would have been too large a proposal to make, although I should have been glad to see special War pensions exempted from Income Tax, I am only asking that the special rate of Income Tax which was settled in Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1916, varying from 9d. in the pound in the case of a total income that does not exceed £300 a year from all sources up to 3s. 6d. in the pound on a total income exceeding £2,500, should be applicable in the case of all pensions.
    There is one very obvious argument for it. It has taken three years to completely convince the Treasury that the pay of our soldiers and sailors should not be chargeable with the full rate of war taxation, in fact, that the principle should apply that we should not ask people to risk their lives as well as to pay in large measure into the fund for the provision of their own pay. If that is true with regard to the pay of those who are on active service, surely it is not right when people have actually made the sacrifice, in some cases the supreme sacrifice, and have died for their country and have left a widow with a small pension as some means of support in the absence of her natural supporter, that the widow's small pension should pay the War taxation. I do not think there is anything in that proposition which will contravene the underlying principle of Schedule E. It is quite true that all pensions, like any other incomes, have always been held to be liable for a contribution towards the national Revenue, but that is the ordinary peace Revenue which has to be collected from all alike. It does not contravene the principle that those who have not been wounded or disabled in the War, whose husbands, fathers or other supporters have not been killed in the War, should find the main Revenue, which will be demanded for certainly a generation, probably two generations, at a very high rate of Income Tax incurred entirely in respect of defending the country and the cause of liberty and civilisation. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply that principle, which is now admitted in respect of pay, to the pensions, and to say that the same scale of Income Tax, more modest and really, in respect of the small income not exceeding £300, precisely the same scale which was in force before the War in

    1329
    regard to earned incomes, shall apply to those pensions which, in the vast majority of cases, will all be below the £300 level, and that such pensions should pay only the peace taxation which I hold was the scale of taxation contemplated when the Income Tax, 1842, was passed. I hope I have put the case clearly before this Committee, and that as a matter of principle this Amendment will have the support of the majority of hon. Members. I hope, indeed, that paragraphs {a) and.' (b) of the new Clause, which embody two of the Amendments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to accept from me, will be rounded off and completed by exempting these war pensions from the special rate of Income Tax which is and will be demanded from civilians to pay for the War.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I hope the hon. Member will not press us in this matter. We have made considerable concessions, as he knows. I do not think it is quite reasonable to say that by granting this concession we shall be rounding oft a circle. So far from rounding off we shall be starting off in another direction upon a completely novel course, and it may go a considerable distance before we finish. The Committee must first bear in mind, in spite of the very natural sentimental appeal, that, as was stated on a former occasion by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the rate of Income Tax was taken into account when the amount of the pensions was assessed. We must also bear in mind that the Section 30, to which the hon. Member alludes, is also renewed year by year for the period of the War, and it will give too little alleviation if we were to introduce a complete change in a system like this in so short a period, as we hope it will be, as may last as between the end of the War and a short time afterwards. There is no reason we can see why a concession of this kind should be granted which puts pensioners of this class on a completely different footing from every other kind of pensioner, and that pays no regard to the means of the person to whom the pension is awarded.
    Mr. PETO: The very terms of the Amendment I propose would apply a scale which is graduated from a total income of £300 a year to £2,500 a year, and paying rates varying from 9d. to 3s. 6d. in the £.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I mean as compared with other pensions. Also, by granting this concession we should be improving the position of the Income Tax-payer as against the persons whose pension is so small as not to bring them within the limits of the Income Tax. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I think the hon. Gentleman might have reversed what he has just said, that the Income Tax payer has his pension deducted and receives a less amount than those persons whose pensions are not subject to review. He claims consideration from the House because concessions have been made, but the concessions have been made to other persons, and not to those who were receiving these pensions, which are due to the survivors from those who have died or those who are suffering a loss of earning power by wounds or disablement. He claims that Income Tax is taken into account when the amount of pension is considered. That might probably be so when the amount of pension is of the proportion of two-thirds of a comparatively large Civil Service salary.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I meant in fixing the scale of the Warrant.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: It was taken into account? That, I dare say, alters the argument. With regard to the question of it only being for the period of the War, we hope that the prices which are current during the period of the War will be reduced after the War, and if this concession were granted for the period of the War it would be during a time of exceptional need. I am sorry the Government has not seen its way to mate some concession here.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. A. BRYCE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "(c) Section forty-three of the Finance Act, 1916, shall have effect as if the words ' three shillings and sixpence.' were omitted, and the words ' one shilling and sixpence ' were substituted therefor."
    This Amendment raises the question of what is called double Income Tax. I think properly it should rather be called double War Tax, because really practically the whole of the taxation now under the head of Income Tax is war tax,

    1331
    and in the case of the Dominions it is entirely war tax, because, except for the very small local Income Tax of certain States in Australia, no Income Tax existed before the War at all. This Amendment is a proposal to extend the relief which was granted last year to a certain extent to a further extent. I and those who act with me are more modest this year than we were last year. Last year we asked that the whole 5s. charged in this country as Income Tax should be remitted to those who had paid Income Tax in another of His Majesty's Dominions. This year we only ask that the relief which was given last year to the extent of Is. 6d. should be extended to the amount of 3s. 6d.—in other words, extra relief to the extent of 2s. We protest against this tax on the ground of its injustice and of its impolicy. On the ground of its injustice I need not offer a long argument. Everyone has admitted it. It has been admitted by the financial authorities of the various Dominions. The key of the citadel, in so far as the old argument of the Treasury in favour of a double Income Tax is concerned, was given away by the allowance of Is. 6d. which was made last year. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted the injustice of it himself. The other day I introduced an influential deputation to him, and he told us that between us and him there was no difference of principle involved. He admitted, further, that the tax was an unjust one, but he pleaded the necessity.
    With regard to that question of necessity, I wonder whether it is so great as he makes out. If it is admitted that there must be injustice in all taxation, it becomes a question of the degree of injustice and of the policy of injustice. As regards the degree of injustice, let us see what it is that the Chancellor is losing at present by the 1s. 6d., and then we might be able, perhaps, to see what he would lose if he made the further concession for which I ask. It was said last year by the then Secretary to the Treasury that the amount given up by the Treasury under the 1s. 6d. would be something like £1,000,000. That is a large sum under normal conditions, but at present it is an extremely small one. It is the cost of one-eighth of a day of the War. I have asked the Chancellor, and he has been asked
    1332
    privately, what is the actual loss which was incurred under the claims of this rebate of 1s. 6d. last year. He told me in reply to a question a few weeks ago that it was not possible yet to say—that the information was not available. I understand from him that the claims are constantly coming in, and there has not been a very long currency of the possibility of claims—only the last eight months. But supposing it amounts to £1,000,000 that he is going to sacrifice by this, what I am asking him to do is to give up about as much as that. I will try to show why it will not be more than another £1,000,000, supposing it is £1,000,000. The first 1s. 6d. rebate is the heaviest rebate which will have to be paid, because the rebate will have to be made, as regards Income Tax, in all the Dominions which have Income Tax. The Income Tax varies very much in the different Dominions. The local Income Tax in Australia amounts to 6s. 3d. in the £. At the Cape it is something like 3s. 6d., but I am not sure that it has not been increased to 5s. In New Zealand it amounts to something like that, and in India to 1s. 3d., plus a Super-tax which has recently been imposed. The amount of the rebate he will have to make if he accepts my Amendment will be considerably less in proportion to the amount of the rebate which he has to make under the first 1s. 6d. In other words the amount of rebate, as we get nearer to the 5s., will become progressively less. I do not believe, therefore, that if he rebated a further 2s. he would lose more than another £1,000,000. Is it too much to ask him, for the sake of the injustice which is being done, to rebate another £1,000,000? The other night he rebated £1,000,000 to the holders of liquor licences in this country on the grounds of justice. The words of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were these:
    "We shall not be doing more than justice to a large body of people who, although they may carry on a trade which in the eyes of many hon. Members the ought not to he allowed to carry on under any circumstances, are fully entitled to this abatement by every rule of equity.'"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT. 2nd July, 1915, col. 835. Vol. XVV.]
    There can be no complaint with regard to the nature of the business on which I ask for a rebate here. There can be no question of anything against the public interest being done by it, and if the liquor trade on grounds 01 pure equity were entitled to that rebate of £l,000,000 on their licences—a rebate which was

    1333
    founded upon a barrelage of 10,000,000 when it is now going to be increased by a third—I think is fair to ask the Chancellor to consider this question of giving a further rebate to the persons who hap pen to be taxed for a double war tax.
    With regard to the impolicy of the tax, there has been no question. I have not seen any argument put forward by any assembly, any body of people or anyone to defend the imposition of this double war tax. By every rule of equity it is a thing which should be completely abolished. On what ground can you make a discrimination against a man who happens to have investments in Australia as against a man who happens to have investments in Canada? There if no Income Tax in Canada at present. There is no Income Tax in the West Indies, and in various other Colonial possessions, and a person who has his money invested there does not suffer. Still more is the discrimination intolerable when you remember that a person who has his money invested altogether outside the United Kingdom, in the Argentine for instance, or Chili, or Peru, or any other place, does not suffer from this double Income Tax at all. There is, therefore, a definite premium on the withdrawal of the investments of persons living in this country and the placing of that money in foreign countries. That appears to me to be an intolerable discrimination, and not only intolerable but absolutely disastrous to the Imperial interests of this country. It violates every kind of principle on which a country should be run. There is great talk nowadays of the development of the resources of the Empire for the benefit of the Empire, with which I entirely sympathise, and which I will do my best in every way to forward. All the members of the Imperial Conference laid emphasis on that point. The Secretary of State for India, the Premier of New Zealand, the Premier of Canada, and all the other statesmen who were present at that conference laid the greatest emphasis on that point. You will prevent development of that policy if you maintain this system.
    Furthermore, you deeply offend the sentiments of the members of the great British Commonwealth living abroad by the fact that you discriminate against them as compared with those who put their money into other countries. There is nothing more calculated to destroy
    1334
    Imperial sentiment than the continuance of this system. I have heard in connection with the necessity of holding on to this tax which the Chancellor has alleged as a partial justification for it, that it is by no means certain that he is not at this moment losing a very large part of his income which is derived from the double tax by the re-transference to the-Colonies of businesses which formerly were conducted from here, and which therefore paid the double tax. I know a very large firm engaged in the Colonial trade which has transferred its headquarters abroad in order to avoid this double Income Tax. Of course, it still pays Income Tax to Australia, but no longer to this country. Sir Joseph Ward at the Imperial Conference mentioned the case of a business with a capital of £4,000,000 which was leaving the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) admitted that there was very considerable danger, and he knew that this was happening with regard to a number of businesses. In fact, it is admitted largely by those who know, although so far it has not been admitted by the Treasury, that there is very considerable danger of income being lost to this country. We do not want to suggest that in the case of the rebate on licensed houses the right hon. Gentleman was in any way influenced by the fact of the very important power which that trade possesses, not perhaps in the House, but certainly in the country. I am sure that considerations of that kind did not enter into his mind. Anyone who has had contact with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer knows his fairness
    Mr. BUTCHER: I desire to support as strongly as I can the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I admit at once the Committee cannot be called upon on the present occasion to deal with the principle of double Income Tax. In its-widest and most comprehensive form it is a large question which will have to be settled after the War. The Imperial Conference have admitted that the question is of deep and far-reaching importance, and that in its widest aspect it cannot be settled until after the War. But while that is perfectly true, it is no less true to say that at this moment, during this War, there is an urgent question to be decided which ought to be dealt with not only during the War but for the very reason that the Was is going on, because

    1335
    it is due to the War that this question has become so urgent at the present moment. It is in consequence of the War that these largely increased Income Taxes are enacted both in this country and in some of our Dominions. I would -ask the Chancellor to bear primarily in mind that this question is urgent during the War and because of the War. There is a heavy hardship, a real injustice upon individuals during the War, and that fact makes it essential you should, so far as possible, mitigate and relieve this injustice while the War is going on. Let me illustrate my meaning by taking the case of Australia. Supposing a man, resident here has property in Australia. I am taking a case which I know exists. Supposing he derives the whole of his income from property in Australia, what is his position? He pays an Income Tax of 6s. 3d. in the Commonwealth, a State Tax of the nature of an Income Tax of about 2s. more, he pays 5s. Income Tax in this country, that is 13s. 3d., and if he pays upon Super-tax it brings up the taxation to something like 15s. or 16s. in the £. Can any human being tell me it is a reasonable thing to do in time of war to exact 15s. or 16s. not from all classes of the community—if it were necessary I should tax them up to 19s.—but to exact from certain specially selected classes of the community a sum of 15s. or 16s. in the £, while you leave the normal taxation of the rich man in this country at something like 9s. or 10s.? I therefore say if you want to relieve this definite and severe hardship on the individual, you must adopt this Amendment, or something like it.
    What is the position at present? There is really no question of principle involved, as I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit. The principle has been conceded last year, and therefore it is only a question of amount, and the question I put to my right hon. Friend is this: "Does he really think that with these enormous taxes, which are war taxes, 1s. 6d. in the £ is a sufficient relief to grant to these specially selected classes of the community?" What we ask for is 3s. 6d. I do not think it is an extravagant demand, and I do put it that, conceding as Tie has done the principle, he is bound, if he wants to make his taxation fair and reasonable, to extend this reduction to something more reasonable, say, 3s. 6d., which is
    1336
    what the Amendment proposes. Let me very briefly give some general reasons which are applicable in peace, and perhaps especially so in war-time, against a tax of this sort. This double Income Tax, even if it be low, but more especially when it is as it now is exceedingly high, is in its nature essentially an anti-Imperial Tax. I am glad to have the assent of the Chancellor to that. In the first place, it discourages the man resident in this country from putting his money into the Dominions for investment. In the second place, it acts as an inducement upon a man who has already got his money there to withdraw it and invest it here, or in some happier country where the Income Tax is not so high. Is this the time to encourage that sort of action —to discourage investment in the Dominions and to encourage the withdrawal of money from the Dominions? I should think that if there was any time in the history of our Empire when we ought to encourage, as far as possible, the development of our Empire, the unity of our Empire and of the outlying Dominions, so far as possible, by investments from this country, that it was the present hour and the present day. We read the other day that the Imperial Conference passed a resolution with absolute unanimity. That Conference, attended by representatives not only of this country, but by representatives of India and of all the self-governing Dominions. That Resolution said that it is our duty as an Empire to give preferential treatment as between the different parts of the Empire, and to assist by our resources all parts of the Empire. Is this carrying out the resolution of the Imperial Conference? Will it give satisfaction throughout the Dominions to be told the British Government cannot afford to give an exemption of more than 1s. 6d. to people who are paying something like 15s. in the £ Income Tax here and in the Dominions? That is the Imperial point of view which might, I need hardly say, be very greatly elaborated.
    Let me put it from the point of view of the individual. I say it is a very unfair discrimination against one class of individual as compared with another. Just think what the two classes are who are affected. There is the man who has made his money out in Australia, has practically, it may be, the whole of his property in Australia, and comes home to reside in the old country. A war is

    1337
    going on, and because he comes home to reside in this country he is taxed far more than any other class of the community, which has not property in Australia. Or take the man who, before the War invested money in Australia, whose outlook was perhaps somewhat wider than that of some of those who invested money in the South American Republics, or even in the United States itself, but who had the patriotism and insight and far-seeing outlook to see it was his duty to support, as far as he could, and to help the interests of Australia. Now he is to be rewarded by having this imposed upon him, whereas other people who have invested their money, say, in the South American Republic, where there is no Income Tax, are to be relieved of this tax. I do put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the larger part of this tax, both in this country and in the Dominions is a war tax. Is it right that from the pure accident of a man living here and having property in Australia, that he should be called upon to contribute twice over for the War in which we are all interested, and to which we all ought to give a common sacrifice, and for which we all ought, as far as possible, to bear a common burden. It is one War. There is one Meet, one Army, one cause, and therefore I say that it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as he can, to make equality of sacrifice as between those who contribute to the cost of this War in different parts of the country. The logical demand, perhaps, we ought to make is this: We ought perhaps to say—and I venture to think this would be logically reasonable —"find out how much of the tax in the Dominions is pure War tax and deduct that from the British Income Tax payable here." I think that would be a logical way of carrying it out, but the Amendment asks something else. It asks: "Deduct from the British Income Tax 3s. 6d.; if the Dominion War tax is as much as that; if the Dominion tax is not as much as that, only deduct the amount of the Dominion tax." So that the most that can be deducted under this proposal is 3s. 6d., and it may very well be in the case of some Dominions less. In Canada, for instance, persons might have a deduction much less. I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a relatively small
    1338
    matter in point of money, compared to the daily cost of the War it is almost contemptibly small, and if he makes us this concession he will not only be relieving individuals from what is admitted to be a great hardship and a serious injustice, but he will be doing something to carry out that idea of Imperial unity, that desire to meet our Dominions in every way we possibly can in order to increase their material prosperity and development, for which he himself has in the past stood as so stalwart a champion.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, two nights ago, owing to the lateness of the hour, permitted this discussion to be carried over till to-day, and if I only say a few words on this subject the Chancellor will, I am sure, understand that it is because my friends and I who were here at that time pledged our word to do all we could to keep this discussion as short as possible. There are just two or three points I wish to mention. First of all, it was said by the right hon. Gentleman who sits for Cambridgeshire, when he was Financial Secretary, that this really was only a question which affected a certain number of rich men in the City of London. I want the House to believe me that that is not in any way true. I myself addressed a meeting of over a thousand people, everyone of whom was affected by this impost, and most of them were people of very moderate means. In addition to that I have had hundreds of letters from the same type of people, and I could read a great number, but I will only read one which is typical. It is from a woman. She says:
    "My income is just under £400 a year. I have had two children to bring up and I had to go to work very carefully in order to give them a public school education. This is now finished with, my son being a naval fighting-pilot in France and my daughter a V.A.D. worker. Unless we obtain some relief it is my intention to leave England on the first possible opportunity."
    And so it is all the way through. This burden has really become, not through any fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but owing to the circumstances, of the War, absolutely intolerable to these people of limited means. I will not dwell on that part of the question, but I want to come to the question of the Imperial Conference. It is sometimes suggested the Dominion Prime Ministers were easily persuaded to fall in with the suggestion that this should all be left to a conference after the War. They did

    1339
    fall in with that suggestion patriotically, but I venture to think that it was solely because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not there.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not there, but I saw them.
    General CROFT: I cannot help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been there he would not have adopted the same arguments as were adopted by Sir Robert Chalmers, and which largely influenced the decision of the Conference. From what we know of the right hon. Gentleman we know that he could not have associated himself with those arguments. Sir Robert Chalmers said that there were so many anomalies that they could not touch this one until the whole question was reviewed. In other words, he admitted that he could not correct the most glaring anomaly in the whole of the Budget for fear it should become less anomalous. That is to say, he admitted that there was this string of anomalies, and he seemed to advance the argument that because there were so many he could not attack one which had become so gravely aggravated owing to the War. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever associate himself with that. With regard to the second point, he said the Inland Revenue authorities wore so overwhelmed owing to depletion of staffs that they could not undertake this change. As, however, you already have the rebate and the principle established, I put it that there cannot be this enormous work put on the depleted staff, and that therefore, that was hardly a worthy argument to put before the Prime Ministers. As has been mentioned, industries are leaving this country, and we only have to go back and see what a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), said at the Conference. He said:
    "He had no interest in delay in this matter because it is perfectly true that with the very high rates of tax which are now in force in this country there is a great and growing tendency to remove the offices of companies to other places, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will thus lose not merely the revenue which he now collects on income earned abroad, but he loses the whole revenue. It is therefore to the interest of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer to get this matter reviewed and to arrive at a decision upon it as early as possible."
    I am glad to think that we shall probably have that right hon. Gentleman in our Lobby if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to give us those joyful tidings which we expect. This is very eloquent
    1340
    testimony to show that the raising of this question is not merely the effort of private Members, but that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Secretary of State for India, has seen the great tendency to move these companies overseas.
    Sir Robert Borden also said something of which this House ought to take note:
    "An unintentional discrimination in favour of foreign capital which, coming to one of the Dominions for investment, will not be faced with double taxation, or may not be, while British capital invested for the same purpose is confronted with that handicap."
    There we have the real fact, that it may mean preferential treatment for the foreigner for the protection of his property as against our own. The Committee is well aware, I think, of the principle we are trying to get established. None of those interested in this question admit that there ought to be any double Income Tax at all within the British Empire, but we are not fighting that principle at this moment. What we suggest now is that practically the whole of this new taxation in Australia and the Dominions over the seas, I think it must be admitted, is War taxation, new taxation which has taken place since the War. If that be true, we maintain that it is only right that these Dominion citizens, owners of property in the Dominions, should have to pay that amount of Income Tax which they were paying prior to the War, and they should not have to pay anything over that twice over, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) said, twice over for the same Armv that is fighting all over the world under the British flag. If we delay the question now and leave it over, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was inclined to do, to a conference after the conclusion of peace, I put it that that will be absolutely fatal, because it is just at that moment, at the conclusion of hostilities, when you want to give confidence to the British Empire. What business man is going to leave it to chance to see this really confiscatory taxation of investments remedied? Who is going to invest in Australia if he is liable to duties ranging up to 13s. and 14s. in the £, in toto? Naturally you want to have confidence, and that can only be gained if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to meet us in the direction suggested in the Amendment. He seems to be deliberately killing the goose that lays the golden egg. He wants confidence and Revenue, and yet he is going to oppress the very companies

    1341
    who are going to pay within the country. He is penalising them for the mere fact that they have come back to, or are keeping in touch with, the Mother Country. He is granting a foreign preference against the British trader. He is imposing, as Sir Joseph Ward put it, a Poll Tax on the homing Britons who come back to the Mother Country.
    I may not be able to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on grounds of sound finance or Imperialism—although he used to be wedded to both these great causes—but I believe I can appeal to him on the really bad ground of ordinary justice and equity in this matter. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself say, speaking on the subject?
    "I say now, and I have always thought., that double Income Tax as it exists now is unfair, and ought not to continue after the end of the War. It is one of the things which I am convinced ought to be altered."
    And then he went on to say:
    "This is not a time when we can give up Revenue during the War."
    The financial stress and equity in this case do not seem to me to fit "This is not a time when we can give up Revenue during the War." The right hon. Gentleman pleads war necessity j but, after all, we have heard that before. The occupation of Belgium is supposed to be a war necessity, but it is as unjust as this double Income Tax. There was a crime there, and this is a crime. To suggest that on the ground of financial stress we ought to keep on putting this double burden upon our Dominions overseas at this time seems to me to be hardly fair. "This is not a time when we can give up Revenue during the War," but I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recollect what the vast majority of these people have given up during the War. Think of the contributions they have made. We in this country sometimes do not realise how vast is the Australian contribution, the Canadian contribution, and the New Zealand contribution. One has only to think of the recent names of victories; that of Messines Ridge, Vimy, Bullecourt, and those other fierce battles which were so largely contributed to—though not, as the Press suggest, won entirely—by those expeditionary forces paid for by those people for whom we are trying to get justice this afternoon. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet us on the ground, first of all, of equity, because it is not just or fair to go on
    1342
    with these present taxes; and, secondly, on the ground of confidence, so that at the conclusion of hostilities people will be encouraged to invest their money under the flag instead of being driven to countries of less civilisation where there is no double Income Tax to be paid. If the right hon. Gentleman will indicate I that he will be able to meet us, or, at any rate, to go a long way in our direction, I believe foe will do a great act; but if he neglects the very strong feeling that exists throughout the Empire on this subject he will be doing a grave disservice to the whole Imperial cause. I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: Like the hon. and gallant, Gentleman who has just spoken, I appreciated very much the courtesy with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening met the request of those who are interested in this great question for delay in its consideration, and, like him, I propose that my speech shall be as short as possible. I have no wish to delay the Committee upon this point, but I do feel that in these times it is only right that those who are associated with, or have friends in many of these great Colonies and Dominions of the Empire, should show by their speech and, if necessary, by their vote in this House their sympathy with them in a question of this character, and that they are determined to give them their best support. For that reason only I am taking part in this Debate. Other speakers have pointed out the reason which makes this concession for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked an act both of simple justice and, from our own point of view, of interest. The arguments really resolve themselves under two heads, the arguments that appeal to the heart, and the arguments that appeal to the head. Fortunately, in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer we boast a great Minister who is distinguished for qualities of both heart and head, and, if I may say so, after having listened to a great many of his speeches while this Bill has been under consideration, I think we may rest assured that so far as his heart is concerned he is already won. My observation also leads me to believe, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of those whose head will always govern his heart. I

    1343
    think; therefore, that it is necessary to appeal slightly more to that hard head for which he is conspicuous.
    The argument I wish to press upon him and the Committee most strongly is this. I am convinced, from my own experience and knowledge of financial matters in the city and overseas, that there is great force in the argument that by continuing our present policy of diminishing the credit of our Colonies we are indirectly lessening the revenue to this country; and, what is even more important, we are losing trades to this country. I do not think it is at all realised how great the effect is of the head office of a vast commercial undertaking being established in this country. It influences orders, it influences finance, it influences numbers of transactions that are not apparent on the surface, but which are very real in practice, and so, I believe, that there is an indirect loss to the Exchequer by allowing this to continue, and that to compel in many cases the transference of great businesses from this country elsewhere does very often mean an adverse effect on the receipts of the Exchequer, and also on the receipts of our merchants and manufacturers in this country. For that reason, therefore, I do press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should give his most sympathetic consideration to the arguments which have been placed before him, and more particularly to the arguments which, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just pointed out, were adduced with such great force by the Secretary of State for India at the recent Imperial Conference. Anyone, I think, who has studied the proceedings at that Conference must have recognised that the great Dominion Ministers who took part in it certainly went away disappointed, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that they would have been unfit for the great positions they hold if they had been convinced by the extraordinarily weak arguments put forward by Sir Robert Chalmers, as representing the Treasury, as reasons for delay. There is no principle involved in this, and I do not think anybody can believe that a mere alteration in the rate of rebate could possibly give rise to an immense volume of new work. It is a childish argument, and one which I do not think would convince any business man for a moment. I do not wish to take up any more of the
    1344
    time of the Committee, and I am very glad to have had the opportunity of expressing my views on this great Imperial question, for it is no other.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think we ought to follow out the precept mentioned by the hon. Member opposite and regard this matter from the point of view of the head and not of the heart. What are the real facts with respect to it? The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) said that if you invest your money in South American securities you do not have to pay a double Income Tax, as you have to do if you invest it in Colonial securities. But is my hon. and learned Friend aware that one may make investments in Colonial Government securities without having to pay a double Income-Tax, and that anyone who invests his money in such securities is in exactly the same position as he who puts his money in South American securities? He is only subject to the double Income Tax if he carries on business in the Colonies and resides here, which is a totally different thing altogether.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I was referring to the case of the man who invested his money for the development of the Colony—who did not merely buy shares on the Stock Exchange for the purpose of mere money making, but who invested it for the development of the Colony.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that if you invest money in Colonial Government securities you receive a, comparatively low rate of interest, while if the money is invested in commercial undertakings the return is a good deal more. I would also like to point out that, owing to the manner in which the Colonies conduct their affairs, money which, they raise over here in England is spent in carrying on business the object of which is the development of the resources of the Colony, and, therefore, that particular argument does not apply. As I have-said, the only question involved is whether people who start businesses or firms in a Colony but live here are or are not to be subjected not merely to the Income Tax levied in the Colony, but also to the Income Tax levied in this country. They are not so subjected, unless they are-residing in this country or have the head office of their undertaking here. If they

    1345
    are residing here or have their head office here, surely it is because it is to their advantage to do so, and that is what it really comes to. What my hon. Friend asks for is that if I think it is to my advantage to establish a business in Australia and to live over here, I shall only be called upon to pay the Income Tax which is levied in Australia and not have to pay any tax levied here. I am quite certain if the Committee will look upon this matter in that light it will see that the argument does not hold ground for one moment. I should not live in this country unless I considered it to my advantage to do so, and, it being to my advantage, surely I ought to pay the same tax as anybody else.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about one war and one country. That raises a different point altogether. If affairs were so managed that there could be absolutely a united Empire, and the whole of the taxes raised in the Empire could be put into a common pot and dealt with accordingly, it would be an ideal state of affairs with which I should have sympathy. But such a state of affairs does not exist at the present moment. Under the Act of 1913 it was held by the judges to be the law of the land that if money was earned in any other part of the world and was not brought to England, then it was not liable to Income Tax. That is to say, if a person received £1,000 a year in Australia and spent it there, on that £1,000 he could not be called upon to pay Income Tax in this country; he would only have to pay the Income Tax in Australia. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to restoring that law, and if he can make it applicable, say, to the Colonies, it would, I think, be a just thing to do, and it would to a certain extent meet the question which has been raised by my hon. Friends. But to go beyond that and to say that the Colonies are to have all the benefit of a business which is also carried on here, and which probably would not be so prosperous if it were not carried on here, and to say that that business is not to be liable to Income Tax here, seems to me to set up a position which will not hold water.
    Sir J. D. REES: It must be admitted that the case of India is upon a different footing to that of Australia, but it is a difference in degree and not in any way a difference in principle. There, however, relief is given by the deduction of Income Tax up to 1s. 6d. in the £, and that covers
    1346
    the actual Indian Income Tax. It might be said, therefore, that in respect of India there is no grievance. That, however, is not so, because the Super-tax has created a grievance in respect of which I would make an appeal to the hard heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for he must naturally have a hard heart in dealing with these matters. I believe the term dura ilia has been used in that regard, but at any rate I will appeal to his organs of compassion, wherever situated, and T will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of the poor Indian, who stands in a much less advantageous position than the colonial. His property is very largely invested in India,—in tea, for instance. He comes here, and finds himself hard put to to educate his children, yet he is caught by this double Income Tax. When I spoke on this subject on a previous occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Suppose the Government of India, instead of putting the tax in the form of Income Tax, levied a tax on production, then no more could be said on the question of Income Tax." I submit that Section 43 of the Finance Act of 1916 was so framed as to expressly cover cases like that. I would also urge that no such tax as the right hon. Gentleman suggests is levied in any British Colony or Possession.
    May I revert for one moment to the case of the Indian Super-tax? It promotes bad finance; it promotes the distribution of resources as dividends right up to the hilt, because it is only levied on undistributed profits. If the correction of this admitted injustice is postponed until after the War, then those men on behalf of whom I am appealing will have suffered for a long time the injustice of paying this double tax, and we shall have more cases like that of the British Electric Supply and Tramway Company, which removed its offices from this country and started business in Bombay, to the great detriment of business here. I admit it is extremely difficult to get any remissions of taxation this year. I admit that the case of India is not so crushing or cruel as that of Australia, where individuals are subjected to confiscation up to 16s. or 17s. in the £ on their income, and where companies are taxed up to 50 per cent.; but the fact remains that the existence of this state of affairs is causing companies to contemplate moving their quarters from this country. The poet has spoken of "necessity the tyrant's plea." I do not want to

    1347
    represent the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a tyrant, but I do suggest he may well give Australia immediate redress, in view of the cruel and crushing injustice from which it is suffering, and at the same time I would point out that the case of India is only different in degree and not in principle, and that it therefore calls equally for treatment.
    Sir GEORGE REID: I think we all sympathise intensely with the anxieties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this juncture, and it is with no sort of pleasure that one prefers a claim against the Treasury even in the best of causes. But I would like to say a word or two on this matter. I should like, in the first place, to express my astonishment at the sentiments which have just been delivered by the right hon. Baronet the, Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Really, that speech takes one back full 200 years, to the time when the Colonies were called Plantations. We have got a little more enlightened now, and we have come to feel that the Colonies are, in many ways, a sound investment for British capital. Where, I would ask, has British capital ever got better returns for its outlay than in the Dominions of the British Crown? It must be the Imperial desire to make this country the real home of the colonist. Men go out as pioneers into the outlying parts of the Empire, and they come back here to spend their declining years. We want them to do that, and we think they should not be taxed twice on the same money and on the same earnings because of their desire to come back to the old country. I may mention one thing which always struck me, long before the War, as a very unfair thing. It has been going on for fifty years, but it is only now that taxation has become so enormous that my colonial friends draw attention to it. An Australian family comes home to England with the object of getting the children educated here. No one objects to that; it is a sign of regard for the old home and for the Empire. We do not wish to see the young children of the Empire deprived of the advantages of being educated in England. Now money is sent here from Australia to pay the expense of the residence of the wife and children in England, and that money is treated here as income and taxed as if it were the income of the taxpayer. I
    1348
    say, however, it is not income, but it is expenditure. It is spent here, but it is not earned here. It is earned elsewhere. My right hon. Friend near me makes all his money within one square mile of this House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no!
    Sir G. REID: I am sure it is not my right hon. Friend's fault if he does not do so. But let us see how this matter becomes so urgent. This matter used not to be pressed much on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am grateful to hon. Members who are not directly connected with the Colonies for the trouble which they have taken in the matter. It is the tremendous taxes arising out of the War that have created this crisis. We in the Colonies and people in this country who have got investments in the Colonies have to pay two war taxes in respect of incomes in many cases. I will mention one of many cases which I could give. An old English family went out and became a new Colonial family and made a lot of money. They put their money into Australian investments. They wanted to spend their last days at home in England. Now they have to pay a war tax on their income in Australia, and upon that very income in Australia, most of which never comes here at all, they have got to pay a separate war tax here. Surely one war tax is enough even for the moat patriotic. Much as I sympathise with the Chancellor, warmly as I admire his brilliant success in his arduous position, it is not a pleasant thing to appeal to his feelings, but I know that he has a conscience left owing to his revelations about the shipping profits, and I venture to press this claim upon him. In this Bill in another matter the justice of this claim is recognised. I think that I am right in saying that there is a Clause in this Bill which provides that in case of excess profits that have been taxed once in Australia, where they have been earned, and again in England, there are certain concessions made. That is the one thing that we want. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will at least be able to give us one of these pleasant able statements which make us feel that we have got all that we want.
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am going to try to fulfil the request just made by my

    1349
    right hon. Friend, but I do not think that I shall go the full length with those who feel keenly on this subject, for they have got a head as well as a heart to the extent of knowing the difference between results and talking. I have listened with great pleasure to the kind things that have been said about myself and my feelings on this subject. Certainly I have tried in this Budget to do what I thought right. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox) is right in saying, if you can divide your personality in that way, that my head is stronger than my heart. I really think that is too much the other way, and that I am much too liable to be touched by things that appeal to one's feelings, as, indeed, the majority of Members are. I have so much sympathy with the objects of this Amendment that I dislike very much not being able to accept it. I certainly feel as strongly as anyone who has spoken the Imperial nature of this question. I hold strongly the belief that the whole future of our nation and our Empire depends on the extent to which we can all work together. But I have always believed, with that object in view, that preference, in the sense of treating each other differently from the way in which we treat the rest of the world, would be the best step to take; and I always believed also that there is no way in which that preference could be mare easily given than to help our Dominions by facilitating our money going there rather than by sending it to the rest of the world. Having said this, I suppose that I ought to say at once that I accept the Amendment. I am sorry to say that I cannot do so. I should like to look at one or two of the arguments used, before giving my real reasons for not being able to meet the case in this way. My hon. Friend below the Gangway used, what seemed to me a curious argument. He said that a million at ordinary times would be a big thing, but that now it is almost nothing. Yet there is a feeling growing in this House, that has been shown more and more month by month, that because of the necessary expenditure of this War on this gigantic scale we are beginning to look at it in that way and to look at amounts of this character as not so very great. I take exactly tine opposite view. I think the more we are compelled to spend these immense sums the more it is right, and I think it is the duty of the House of
    1350
    Commons to try to save if we can every additional million either in saving expenditure or by increasing revenue.
    Mr. BRYCE: Of course, I was not going into that question at all. I am one of the signatories to the memorial which is going to be debated on Friday with regard to waste. Waste is a very different thing from economy.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, but from the point of view of effect after the War, our total indebtedness will depend on two things—revenue and expenditure. Therefore, from the- war point of view, an additional million of revenue is of great value, almost as much value as an additional million saved from expenditure. It has been said that the result of the present system is to drive companies away from this country. There is, of course, risk of that. But so far as that is concerned, we have got to take one risk with another. But one thing in the speech of the hon. Member shows us that that is exaggerated. He told us of a firm which has gone to New York for that purpose. I see accounts of discussion as to immense Income Tax, and perhaps the patriotic gentleman will find that he has gone out of the frying pan into the fire, and, if so, we shall be rather pleased than otherwise. It is not with me a question of whether or not this change ought to be made. I think that it ought. The whole point I am arguing is whether it ought to be made now, during the War. When I say that a change ought to be made, I do not accept the principle of the Amendment. What I mean is that there ought to be some readjustment. There are two distinct points of view from which this has to be regarded. One is the effect on our Colonies and Dominions and the extent to which they have been hindered by keeping on the tax or can be helped by removing it. The other side is the effect on individuals, on British subjects, as to what the hardship is of having to pay under the present system.
    On the Imperial side I wish the Committee in the first place to be clear in their minds that this Amendment has an effect which from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entirely wrong, and I know that the Prime Ministers of the Dominions would also regard it as entirely wrong. The effect of this Amendment would be that if there is a Colony which paid Income Tax at 3s. 6d., they are to get the whole of it and we are

    1351
    to get nothing—that is to say, it is not to be divided. That never was the position of the representatives of the Dominions here. In talking to them they quite recognised that this was a case for adjustment or trying to divide equally between the two Exchequers, and that was done, or is going to be attempted to be done, in regard to excess profits. I could never accept the plea that in trying to set this matter right we should start on the principle that anything extra is to be borne entirely by the British Exchequer, and that the Dominions are not to share in it; and I say further that if hon. Members were to press that view now it is most unlikely that they would get any sympathy, so far as my conversations with the Prime Ministers are concerned, from the Prime Ministers of the Dominions themselves. They think that it is a case of readjustment between the two Exchequers. See how obvious that must be. It may be said that if this were carried it would mean that the Dominions got the whole benefit and we got none of the War taxation. I may be told, as I was by the deputation which I received on this subject, that the Dominions arc spending the money in this War, and that it would be spent in that way no matter who got it. That is not the way to regard the question, and no Dominion Government would regard it in that way. We have got to consider, if we are dealing with the whole Empire as an entity, what is fair in all cases. If the Committee will look at it from that point of view, I think that they will agree with me in this, that splendid as has been the assistance of the Dominions, and certainly I think that taking into account the difference of relationship, the difference of power to control, it has very likely not only been greater than we could have expected, but perhaps greater on the whole in proportion even than that of the United Kingdom, yet you have to look at the condition after the War.
    I do ask the Committee to remember that in no country are its absolute resources being more and more used up, and I do not believe that there is any fair-minded representative of either Canada or Australia who will not see that, looking to the future, the Dominions will probably be better able, without suffering, to bear their share of the burden thrown on them by the War than the United Kingdom will be. That is the first reason why I say we cannot do it. The share has got to be
    1352
    divided. The principles on which it will have to be divided have first to be decided. Another point. It is only Income Tax collecting Colonies which are to get this-benefit as against us. There are some of the Dominions which have no Income Tax at all, but they put on very heavy war taxation in other forms. The result of doing this now during the War would be this, that you would be giving a preference to one Dominion which is raising war revenue by Income Tax as against another Dominion which is raising it by putting on other taxes in a form which is not called Income Tax. In Canada I understand that there is no Income Tax. It is said that they are talking about it, but they have not get it now. I quite agree that if you adopt this plan it would obviously be their interest to have it, but at this moment the effect would be that this preference would be given to some of the Dominions but would not be given to others.
    General CROFT: May I ask if that does, not apply already?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It does. The concession made by my right hon. Friend was wise, but my view is that it is not necessary from the point of view of sentiment or justice to go beyond that concession at the present time. There is another consideration which is very important. The difference between during the War and after the War is simply enormous from this point of view. During the War, practically speaking, there are no opportunities for investing money. On the contrary, we try, in every possible way, to prevent money going away, and from that point of view there is every reason for allowing this question to stand over until after the War comes to an end. I myself have not been able to attend the Conferences, but I have, over and over again, put forward the same considerations which I put to the Committee now-that a broad outlook on the situation ought to be laken—and the conclusion I have come to in regard to the recommendations is that what we have to do should be done immediately after the War and not now. I have to look to the effect on this Bill, and I ask the Committee to remember that so far as concerns the British subject who invests in companies in Canada or Australia the only question in regard to him is whether or not he is suffering, on the whole, with regard to the War to a greater extent than other people. Is that the case? I am inclined to think it is not.

    1353
    Some of my hon. Friends who have spoken presented the subject in a form which is not quite correct. It should be remembered that the War means not only hardship to the whole community, but it means the necessity for this kind of taxation all round. It means hardship of a particular kind which we cannot avoid.
    Why is it, apart from patriotic motives, that anybody invests money in one of the Dominions? What he does is, he looks at the return on the money he invests, and he only takes into account whatever burdens are imposed in the Dominion, or wherever it may be. Obviously there is only a hardship if the net result, when the Income Tax or whatever it is abroad, is deducted, is to give him an income similar to that which a man who is investing in the ordinary way in this country would get. On the balance, I do not think the British subject investing abroad is treated more harshly than others in the thousands of cases with which we have to deal in this country. It should also be remembered that anyone at home who has invested in a company doing business has excess profits taken from him. Up till now in the Colonies they have escaped excess profits, and that is another reason for stating that on the whole I do not think these investors have suffered more as individuals than many thousands of people who have been taxed in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) gave figures with regard to Australia, but I would point out that there there is a graduated tax for individuals, while the tax imposed upon companies is a fixed one, and until now those who have' invested in these companies in Australia have had nothing to pay except a fixed tax. The amount deducted is one-sixth, so that the British investor in a company there only pays one-sixth in Income Tax.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I have figures which certainly satisfy me that the man who owns property in Canada and in the Commonwealth pays a tax of 6s. 3d.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am talking only of companies. The tax on property is graduated, but as regards the companies, the money invested in them is in the position which I have stated. I have really tried to look at this matter from the point of view of what is fair to individuals here as compared with others, and I have tried also to consider it from the point of view of the general interest. Between myself and those who support this Amendment
    1354
    there is no difference whatever on the principle that this ought to be adjusted. The only difference is whether or not it ought to be adjusted during the War; and I have come to the conclusion, in view of all the circumstances I have put forward, and in view of the need of this country of every penny of taxation we can possibly get, that we should deal with this matter after the War ends, and that we should not do anything until the War ends.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I would point out that if a man living in Australia earns his money here, when it goes to him it is taxed. Why should the reverse be the case when investors in this country get income from the Colonies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not want to interrupt my lion. Friend, but I have had complaints from people who are doing business that they are now being taxed in Australia.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The man in Australia who draws his dividends from a London business has no Income Tax to pay upon them. That is of very serious importance. Why, if I am drawing my dividends from a company in Melbourne and I have paid my tax in Melbourne, should I still have to pay money when it comes here? Why should we not reciprocate with Australia in that respect? That is a very important point, and it ought really to be considered. I quite agree that my right hon. Friend puts it on a higher plane, as a question of adjustment between the peoples. If Australia wants to get money to develop her future industries she must come to some arrangement about taxation. The question after all is one of residence, and when the Conference meets I think it ought to be put plainly to them that wherever the money is earned there should be the bigger portion of the taxation, and where it is spent the smaller portion of the taxation. The point my right hon. Friend must press upon the Colonial people is that if they want British money for the development of their industry they must come to an equitable arrangement in regard to the question of taxation, as the basis on which the matter ought to be adjusted between the Colonies and this country.
    Mr. D. MASON: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really not quite correct in what he said in reply to the hon. and learned Member for York. There is a large amount of

    1355
    deduction from the trading profits by the Australian Government, and a person investing money in Australia has that deducted from the capital which is penalised to that extent. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find on inquiry that there is a real grievance, and that he is not quite right in his statement of facts in regard to what is really taken off. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) in his very eloquent and convincing speech went to the root of this grievance. I am sure that if the Treasury would agree to inquire into the matter and make some concession if they find the facts to be as stated, that the movers of this Amendment would be prepared to withdraw it. The facts in dispute are fundamental, and we ought to know them definitely before we legislate. I think the principle which has been admitted is one which requires no argument. It is very clearly set out in Clause 20 with regard to excess profits which provides:
    "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, declare that arrangements have been made with the Government of any such possession whereby in respect of any profits only the duty which is higher in amount is to be payable and the amount of such duty is to be apportioned between the respective Exchequers."
    The Chancellor told us that this is a matter of adjustment, but he thought the Amendment should not be accepted. The hon. and learned Member for York brought out clearly that the British or Australian subject had his capital penalised to the extent of the deduction from profits by this charge. In the Argentine or Brazil no doubt capital there has to suffer from local taxes. This tax of which we complain is neither fair nor equitable. I entirely associate myself with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in thinking that an investor should not be taxed in several parts of one Empire for the same War to the extent that he is taxed. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will agree that there is some doubt as to the amount of the taxation, to promise a further investigation, and in doing so he need not commit himself.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I venture to make an appeal to the Committee? Those who were here on Tuesday night will remember the circumstances under which this discussion was arranged for to-day, and as the Adjournment is to be moved,
    1356
    and in view of the general understanding that we would get the rest of the Bill to-night, I would ask the Committee to come to a decision on this point.
    Mr. STEWART: [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I was only anxious to explain why I was going to vote, if there is to be a Division.
    Mr. BRYCE: I am very sorry the Chancellor has not been able to make some concession, and under the circumstances I must divide, because I think it is really necessary that the opinion of the House should be taken on this matter. I think so very strongly. As regards the form of the Amendment, we were quite willing to meet the Chancellor if he had been willing to meet us. We only adopted this particular form because it is that which the Government themselves adopted and embodied in Clause 43 of the Act of last year. That was a rebate, and there was nothing about adjustment. If the Chancellor will say now that he will make some abatement to be settled by adjustment we are perfectly willing to agree to that. On a personal explanation with regard to what the Chancellor said about my remark as to small amounts, of course I was talking about this being a small amount as compared with other allowances in these matters. A million is an eighth of the expenditure which we are making; every twenty-four hours, and means three hours' expenditure. I think a million of money might be saved per day by avoidance of waste. The Chancellor seemed to draw a distinction between the income of a. person affected by this tax before the War and now, but he did not deal with the question of discrimination. He said that the Australian investor was doing just as well on account of the rise in raw material, but he did not point out that the investor in the Argentine is doing a great deal better and does not pay double tax. With regard to the effect on investments abroad, at the Imperial Conference the Secretary of State said that it was a matter of immediate urgency that companies and firms should have this settled at once.
    Mr. BONAR LAWdissented.
    Mr. BRYCE: I have his words here, and they have only one meaning.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 142.

    Division No. 65.]

    AYES.

    [5.53 P.M.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Martin, Joseph

    Anderson, W. C.

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

    Mason, David M (Coventry)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddinuton, S.)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nield, Herbert

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bird, Alfred

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    O'Leary, Daniel

    Boland, John Plus

    Hogge, James Myles

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Boyton, J.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Burdett-Coutts. William

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cator, John

    Jackson, Sir John (Devonpert)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor).

    Keating, Matthew

    Roes, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Reid, Rt. Hon Sir George H.

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lane-Fox. Major G. R.

    Sharman-Crawford. Colonel R. G.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Crooks, St. Hon. William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Touche, Sir George Alexander

    Crumley, Patrick

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

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Williams, T. J. (Swansea)

    Doris, William

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    M'Kean, John

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M. (Bethn'l Green, S. W.)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr.

    Hackett, John

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    A. Bryce and Mr. Butcher.

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Armitage, Robert

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Rowlands, James

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Hewart, Sir Gordon

    Rutherford, Sir John (Lanes., Darwen)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hinds, John

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Barrie, H. T.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebona, W.)

    Beach, William F. H.

    Hudson, Walter

    Seely, Lt. Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Shortt, Edward

    Bcauchamp, Sir Edward

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

    Beckett, Hon. Garvase

    Johnston, Sir Christopher

    Smith, Sir. Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Joyce, Michael

    Stewart, Gershom

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    King, Joseph

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Thompson, Rt. Hon. R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Chancellor. Henry George

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Tickler, T. G.

    Clough, William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Wason Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Cornwall Sir Edwin A.

    Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wedgwood, Lt. Commander Josiah

    Currie, George W.

    Morison, Hector

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines.. Leuth)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Davies, Sir W. Ho well (Bristol, S.)

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

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

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

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Philipps, Gen. Sir Ivor (Southampton)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L

    Fell, Arthur

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Res, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Fleming, Sir John

    Bees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    F. Guest and Mr. J. Hope.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    Mr. HOLT: I want to make a very strong protest against this Clause. I find no fault whatever with the action of the Government on the subject under discussion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But in this matter of the double Income Tax my grievance has always been against the Colonial Governments and not against the British Government. I want also to protest against the re-enactment of the extension of Clause 30 of the Finance Act of 1916. I think it is absolutely wrong to give any class of the community special exemption from taxation by means of an acknowledgment of good and honourable service. The correct way to pay for the services of soldiers and sailors is to give them adequate wages and salaries, for their work; to give them exemption and special reductions of taxation, I submit, is entirely unsound. It is wrong, because it gives most to the people who need it least, and it increases automatically the salaries of the better paid men. This extension is a proposal that the officers and masters of the mercantile marine, who are servants of private persons, should receive special relief of taxation. I do submit to the Committee that it is taking a step which is most improper. These persons no doubt are receiving from those who employ them extra pay, and why the country should go out of its way to give a special reduction of taxation, and to pay part of the wages of somebody else, I cannot for the life of me understand. That is the real effect of it. What is it the House proposes to do? To pay part of the wages of another man's servant. The result is that the other man reduces his wages bill. It is an unwise course. Take the case of a hotel or station porter. If he gets a large sum of money in tips the effect is that his wages are reduced. Therefore, if you proceed with this proposition, the effect will be that it will not be the man to whom you give the relief who will benefit, but his employer. It may not happen at once, but that will be the ultimate effect. I shall make the strongest possible protest against the whole idea of any person receiving relief from taxation for their services. These ought to be rewarded straightforwardly, and with proper payment; and all classes of the community
    1360
    ought to pay taxes equally, in proportion to their income and ability to pay.
    Mr. PETO: The hon. Member for Hexham has again repeated what he said on a previous occasion in speaking of these officers and men of the merchant service. He persists in falling them somebody's
    servants—
    Mr. HOLT: So they are!
    Mr. PETO: In this War we have found that they are everybody's servants, that they are the servants of the nation. They have rendered services to the nation which I say compare, and compare favourably, with those rendered by the officers and men of His Majesty's Navy and Army. I am quite sure the servants of the hon. Member for Hexham will not forget that he has compared them with hotel waiters in the speech he has just delivered.
    Mr. HOLT: I did not!
    Mr. PETO: The hon. Gentleman painted out that hotel waiters receiving large tips were liable to have their pay reduced. That was his argument. Why, I ask, should not a concession which has already been extended to soldiers and sailors of His Majesty's Army and Navy be extended to those gallant men who have rendered such signal service during the War? This, however, was not my purpose in rising. I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary whether it is possible, or administratively impossible, to make Sub-section (a) of the new Clause retrospective1! It has been pointed out to me, even in the day or two which have elapsed since this concession was made, and was made known outside, that it had operated with great hardness to men who are in receipt of very small pay, subalterns in the Army and others. In particular, I have received one letter from a lieutenant invalided out of the Service, who points out that he has had to pay, owing, as I think, to a mistake in the legislation of last year or the year before, at full rates on all his income, and that he has not benefited at all by the concession of the 9d. rate on his pay. I do not know whether it is administratively possible to do what I ask; if it is, I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider between now and Report whether, now that he has rectified this matter, we shall make it retrospective in respect of the last two years.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for Ascertaining the Profits of Company whose Business is Carried on by a New Company.)
    Clause seven of Part I. of the Fourth Schedule of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall be read as if the following words were added at the end thereof: "Provided that where on a sale by a company of its business and assets to a new company, the holders of a majority of the shares of the old company are also shareholders in the new company and the profits of the new company are applied in the business, then in estimating the profits of the new company a deduction shall be allowed in respect of any losses made by the old company equal to the amount of such profits so applied in the same manner as if such losses had been made by the new company."—[Mr. Peto.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Clause 7 of the Fourth Schedule of the Finance Act of 1915 provided:
    "Where in the case of any trade or business—

    (a) the percentage standard is adopted as the pre-war standard of profits; and

    (b) the net result of the trade or business during the three last pre-war trade years has shown a loss; and

    (c) any part of the profits has been applied in extinction of that loss; then in estimating the profits a reduction shall be allowed equal to the amount of profits so applied.

    "That Sub-section was put in, after very considerable debate, to meet the obvious case in which the Excess Profits Tax would operate with great hardship where the losses had been incurred by the business or company, and which it was necessary to make good out of profits before the capital of the company was sufficiently worked up again to enable it to operate successfully. It has been pointed out to me that there are cases in which that Clause, which I have read, does not apply, because such losses have been incurred by the company or business and have involved their reconstruction, though the majority of the shareholders of the new company were the shareholders of the old company—when, in effect, the business is the same that has to be carried on, and when it) is only owing to the
    1362
    reconstruction of the company that technically it could not get the advantage of that Section 7 of the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1915. Therefore, I want, in pursuance of the policy laid down so ably a couple of nights ago by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington to see whether, although we cannot entirely avoid obvious cases of hardship of the Excess Profits Tax, we can do something, particularly where they operate in only a few cases, for really the cost to the Exchequer would be practically nothing. Therefore, I desire to move my new Clause. The wording may sound rather involved, but if the hon. Gentleman can suggest a simpler form of words to express what I want I shall be glad. What I want is to allow that section of the Fourth Schedule to operate in the case where a business is carried on by the new company, being the same business and the same shareholders. I hope my hon. Friend will accept the principle of the Amendment, and recognise that, though a very small matter, it will remove a hardship in a few cases which is a very serious detriment to business.
    Mr. BALDWIN: One of the most difficult things to do—and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—is to regulate by Statute hard and fast cases, and those that are on the border line. That is what he is asking us to do in this case. It is perfectly clear, and we are all agreed as it stands at present that where a business changes hands, those who step into the shoes of the old proprietor should not be in a position to write off the losses which have been made in the past, because it is obvious that the price at which they acquire the assets does not burden them with the losses which, have gone before. They actually buy the assets at a lower price because all these losses have been incurred. But there are many cases of reconstruction—and it is possibly some such case as this that my hon. Friend has in mind—where it is really very difficult to lay down a hard and fast line, or invent any words always to make it clear whether or not the continuity of the business has been broken. I must feel, after looking with some care into this matter, that we have no alternative but to leave the Clause in the Fourth Schedule as it stands. We must leave these cases to be dealt with on their merits as they arise. I would remind my hon. Friend that there is an appeal in these matters either to the

    1363
    local Commissioners or to the Special Commissioners, and as my right hon. and learned Friend by my side reminds me there is also an appeal on the question of law to the Courts. It seems to me that with these safeguards there is sufficient provision to deal with these border-line cases. But I am very much afraid that if we try to rectify by Statute what my hon. Friend considers, perhaps justly, as a grievance, we should, I think, make what is at present a modest confusion worse confounded.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): With regard to the two Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White), the first is in order, but the second (Valuation of Certain Lands for the Purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A and Increment Value Duty) involves a charge, and, therefore, cannot be moved.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Relief of Farm Buildings, etc., from Income Tax Under Schedule A.)
    Section sixty-nine of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (which relates to the extension of relief for maintenance, etc., of land and houses from Income Tax under Schedule A) shall be further extended as follows:—
    After the word "houses," wherever it occurs, shall be inserted the words "farm houses, farm buildings, glass houses, and all other buildings and works for the furtherance of agriculture, horticulture, and the keeping of live stock."
    After the word "maintenance," wherever it occurs, shall be inserted the words "replacement, extension, new building, improvement."
    In Sub-section (1) of that Section the words "to which this Act applies" and the provisio at the end of that Subsection are repealed.
    Sub-section (2) of that Section and in Section eight of the Finance Act, 1914, the words after the word "year," where it first occurs, are repealed, and the limitations contained therein shall cease to apply as respects Income Tax for the year
    1364
    beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seventeen.— [Mr. D. White.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I would commend this Clause to the Committee on the ground that it is a further extension of relief from Income Tax under Schedule A in favour of various improvements for agriculture, for intensive cultivation and the keeping of live stock. It extends the relief that was granted in Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1910, which was passed when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The relief was extended then to land and houses and certain other buildings in these terms:
    "If the owner of any land or house to which this Section applies shows that the cost to him of maintenance, repairs, insurance and management, according to the average of the preceding five years,"
    has exceeded a certain standard he should be entitled to certain relief from Income Tax, and he went on to explain:
    "For the purposes of this Section the term ' maintenance' shall include the replacement of farmhouses, farm buildings, cottages, fences, and other works where the replacement is necessary to maintain the existing rent."
    The relief that was given under that Clause was somewhat further extended by Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1914. The proposal that I have to make it that; it should be still further extended. The ground for this further extension is very simple, namely, that not only at the present time, but immediately at the close of the War, when capital becomes more available, we ought to let that capital flow as freely as it possibly can to the development of the natural resources of our country. I am taking the case of glasshouses, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear in mind that this deals with Income Tax, not under Schedule B but under Schedule A. It seems to me that the relief that has already been given, as far as it goes, to cottages and farm buildings, ought to be extended to glasshouses and to all other buildings and works for the furtherance of agriculture, horticulture, and the keeping of live stock.
    The extension of relief which is proposed by this Clause is in two directions In the first place, it covers a larger number of improvements connected with agriculture and intensive cultivation. In the second place, it proposes to extend the ambit of relief. At present the ambit of relief is strictly limited by those Sections to which I have referred,

    1365
    and the general rule of working is to make, I think, a general deduction of one-sixth in charging Income Tax. The object that I have in view is to exempt these further improvements from Income Tax under Schedule A altogether in such a way that we may be able to say to anyone who embarks his capital in improvements of the kind to which I have referred, "Whatever you do in the way of developing the country in this respect, you will not have to pay in respect of that excellent work a higher Income Tax under Schedule A." I know it may seem ambitious. It certainly is ambitious, but I hope, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see his way to accept it all, he will go some distance, because the object seems to me most desirable. I may say that the ambit is intended to be extended not merely to those agricultural works, but also to cottages and small houses that are already in a limited way within the relief already granted. I quite appreciate, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to say so, the need of the appeal he made to the Committee. I do not want to take up any more time than is necessary, but I do seriously put this to the Chancellor as a matter deserving very careful attention.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is moving this Clause as jam to convey the pill of the second Clause.
    Mr. WHITE: I would like to say I am really moving it on its merits alone, and, of course, independently of the second Clause, and more so as the Deputy-Chairman has ruled the second Clause out of order.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I quite appreciate what the hon. Member has said. I am afraid we cannot accept this Clause. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in entering into any lengthy discussion about it, but it is quite obvious that this proposal would make a considerable change in the method of collecting Income Tax with regard to property of this nature. I feel myself that, however desirable any advance in the direction advocated by the hon. Member may be, it is a subject that must wait for settlement when we take into consideration the whole of the Income Tax question, as we propose to do at the end of the War. I think to introduce a Clause like this into a Finance Bill at this time would be only tinkering with a very wide and large subject which we have to tackle later on.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I am sorry the Treasury have not been able to give this new Clause a more sympathetic reception. It seems to me that when, as is the case with this particular Clause, the Radicals in this House happen to join hands with what is called the agricultural interest, that happy union might receive a little more sympathetic attention. Here you have an Amendment which is honestly intended to encourage agriculture by relieving the person "who actually works the-land and develops his property from the penalising burden of Income Tax upon the capital he sinks in those improvements. If the Government is honest in its desire really to benefit agriculture as apart from landowning, it ought to support mi Amendment such as this. Our Income Tax is now 5s. in the £ that is to say, it is a 25 per cent, tax upon the interest of all money which is invested in any particular line of business. Now capital is likely to be expensive in any case after the War, just at the time it is most wanted for developing the soil of our own country. Why, then, should we not, in order to encourage the development of the soil, make such a trivial change as this, which merely exempts from Income Tax the farm buildings and glasshouses—the two lines on which development is most desired. I do strongly urge on my Conservative Friends who represent more particularly the agricultural interest the merits of this reform. I am sure in this direction the real progress of agriculture in this country must come. The exemption of improvements from taxation is the basis of all real development of agricultural land in this country. I do not conceal from the Committee—it would be quite useless for me to do so—that this is only the beginning, and that every argument which can be used in favour of exempting capital invested in agriculture from the penalising burden of taxation can be, and will be, equally applied to exempting capital invested in any other business in this country. We do not wish to penalise improvements, whether they are agricultural improvements or whether they are industrial improvements— whether they are factories or farm buildings—but what we ask in this Amendment is nothing wide-sweeping, such as general exemption from Income Tax, but merely a short beginning in the right direction by exempting such improvements as farm buildings and glasshouses. I am aware that it is a bad time in the

    1367
    middle of the War to advocate any change, even a change which would be of the greatest possible benefit to the investment of money in this country. If my hon. Friend opposite will allow me to say so, I do not think it is worth while pressing this matter at the present time. The most important thing is that we should make the Government, as we have already made the people of the country, aware that any real progress in matters of taxation must be accompanied by a relief on improvements of all sorts—improvements which mean the investment of capital in Britain itself—from the penalising burden of taxation under Schedule A.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Ascertainment of Percentage Standard in Case of the Rubber Trade.)
    In the case of the trade or business of planting, growing, and or preparation of crude rubber for the market on an application being made under Section forty-two of the principal Act for a calculation of the percentage standard by reference to some factor other than the capital of the trade or business, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall refer the case to the Board of Referees, and the Board of Referees shall deal with the case, and shall have power, if they shall think fit, to direct that the percentage standard shall be fixed otherwise than by reference to the capital of the trade or business, and may direct the percentage standard to be ascertained upon such basis and. by such method, and in such manner as shall be deemed by the Board to be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances; and such order may be made, notwithstanding any previous order made by the Board affecting such trade or business, and shall apply and have effect in lieu of such previous order.—[Mr- Acland Allen.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I move this Clause at the request of the Rubber Growers' Association, which, as the Committee is well aware, represents practically the whole industry of rubber-growing in British colonies. It represents 470 companies, with a very large capital, amounting to some £50,000,000, and about 900,000 acres of planted rubber. Therefore it is an in-
    1368
    dustry which is well worthy the consideration of this House. I am well aware that I have certain initial prejudices to overcome when I propose anything in the nature of relief to the rubber industry. I am aware that it is generally considered to be an industry of wealthy men. I should just like to tell the Committee that that idea is unfairly stated. I will give a little of my own experience. I happen to be a director of a company which has more than 8,000 shareholders, whose average holding amounts to less than £30 apiece. Therefore it cannot be said that that company, at any rate, has for its shareholders very wealthy men. I am a director of another company, a very quiet and steady-going company which is not much seen in the public eye, which has 350 shareholders whoso average holding is less than £130 apiece. Therefore, I think I am entitled to say the rubber industry cannot be said to be an industry of wealthy men. Another prejudice one has to overcome is the fact that certain rubber companies pay very large dividends. I think I heard a murmur from the Financial Secretary to-day about a company which appears in the papers to-day as naving paid a dividend of 125 per cent.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Only 100.
    Mr. ALLEN: I believe 125 per cent, for the year. That is perfectly true, but that company, he will remember, is not subject to excess profits, and, indeed, it is paving a very much smaller dividend than it was before the War. I do not want to put the case too highly, because I feel certain if I did the Chancellor of the Exchequer would immediately get up and quote some investments of his own—for he displays great ingenuity in getting hold of the best investments—and he would probably blow my arguments sky high. There are, however, certain special grievances from which the rubber trade is suffering in this matter. I do not say that the rubber industry is not prosperous, because it is. The price of rubber to-day in the market is less than it was before the War, although the expenses of working the industry are considerably higher, and are likely to go higher still. It cannot, however, be said that there is anything whatever in the nature of profiteering in the rubber industry, because the price per lb. is several pence lower than it was before the War, although freights are higher, and the price of labour is con-

    1369
    siderably more than it was before the War. I think the rubber-growing industry has a special claim to the favourable consideration of the Committee. In the first place, I would like to point out that this being a tropical industry is subject to all the risks which those industries have to undergo, and which are very considerable indeed. We have to maintain a constant fight against various diseases which affect plant life in the tropics, and it is only by great care and scientific study, and keeping a staff engaged in combating these diseases, that we are able to keep them under.
    What happened some years ago in the case of coffee in Ceylon? The whole industry was wiped out in a year or two by diseases which got beyond the control of the planters in that island. There is another very special risk which I think differentiates the rubber trade from any other trade, and it is that there is a considerable time to wait before one gets any return. I know that consideration applies to other industries, but I think I can show that the rubber industry is affected in a very special degree. Let me give an instance of my own which I know has been absolutely authentic. I went out to the East in 1910 and selected some land there for growing rubber. I started amongst some friends of my own here a company in 1911. That estate has been under the best management it has been possible to obtain in the East, and now, in 1917, we have not paid any dividend at all, and it is extremely doubtful whether this time next year, in 1918, seven years after the company was formed, we shall be able to pay any dividend, and if the Excess Profits Tax is still in existence in 1919, when we do hope to get some slight return, the business will be very much affected. I think these facts entitle us to some special consideration.
    But there is a third reason. The rubber industry, more than any other I think, is on the percentage standard and not on the profit standard, the reason being that the great years of development of the rubber industry were the years immediately preceding the War. Prior to 1905 the plantation rubber industry was practically non-existent, and it has grown up in the Middle East and in the Colonies, in the Malay States, Ceylon and Southern India, almost entirely within the last ten or eleven years. But in the year 1905 there were only 19,000 acres under culti-
    1370
    vation, whilst in the year 1913 the acreage had increased to 1,575,000 acres, and those: were the years immediately preceding the War, during which the standard is to be arrived at. Therefore, hardly any of the rubber companies, or comparatively few of them, are on the profit standard, and the great bulk of them are on the percentage standard, and that does differentiate us from various other industries of the country. I think those facts of the great risk and the waiting period being so long do really make 10 per cent. inadequate as a return on the capital. We are not asking in this new Clause that the House of Commons should do anything in the way of fixing a higher standard. All we are asking is that more power should be given to the Referees to go into the whole circumstances of the case, and that they should not be bound so strictly as they are at present by the Act of 1915. We want them to be allowed to take into account other factors than the capital of the company. I know that some proposal of that kind was put before them at the time the percentage standard was fixed. A proposal was made, and it was regarded with a certain amount of favour by the Referees, that instead of a percentage standard on capital they should take as their basis a certain return per acre of planted rubber and charge profits in all cases in which the return was exceeded. As I say, they regarded that with a certain amount of favour, but we were unable to adopt it because it did not come within, the four corners of the Act. All we are proposing is that they should be given certain powers to regard these other circumstances which enter into the matter.
    I think I can show the necessity there is for some such Clause as this by pointing to the gross inequalities between rubber companies produced by the present castiron rule of giving the 10 per cent, basis on capital. There are two companies with which I am acquainted—one is the Seaport Company and the other is the Third Mile Company. Each of these companies has about 900 acres of rubber planted. In the first two accounting periods the profits of the Seaport Company were £38.000 and the Third Mile Company £31,000. Now the Seaport Company pays £2 in excess profits, while the Third Mile Company is called upon to pay £16,000, the reason being that the capital is quite different. The 10 per cent, basis gives a considerable return on the Seaport Company and a very

    1371
    small return in the case of the Third Mile Company, and consequently the latter company is liable to £16,000 profit, whereas the Seaport, with practically the same amount of profit, is only liable to £2. I think when a real injustice of that kind can occur it seems to show that the Referees ought to be allowed to take some other considerations into account. That really is all we are asking for at the present time, and I do not think it is a very ambitious demand to make; indeed, various people connected with the rubber trade are condemning us for not asking for something more, but I may say that we have opened our mouths rather wider in some other Amendments. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might fairly meet us and recognise that there are certain exceptional circumstances with regard to the rubber trade, and he should recognise that the system we have in operation at the present moment gives rise to greater anomalies in this trade than in any other industry in the country.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: In rising to support the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend, I feel that we have here a case which does really demand some attention from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are, however, under this advantage in explaining our case, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman already knows it very well because he has on several occasions received deputations from the rubber-growing industry, and I feel sure he will agree that my hon. Friend who preceded me has stated the case very moderately and fairly. I think, however, that he made one mistake. He talked about special consideration, but I do not think that is required, for all we want is fair treatment to meet the exceptional conditions of the industry. Probably there has never been such a romantic history in the world as the history of the rubber industry. In 1900, seventeen years ago, the annual importation of plantation rubber in this country was only four tons and to-day you look round and you see nothing but rubber everywhere. The War could not be carried on without rubber, and London could not live without it. For if you remove the rubber tyres from the motor-'bus how would the people get to their work? It is a most remarkable industry, and yet the whole of this trade has been brought to its present state by those wonderful characteristics of our
    1372
    people, which enable them to cut out fortunes and industries in the wild jungles.
    It is only some twenty years ago that the first seeds of this great industry were carried out of Brazil in a gentleman's carpet bag. Half of them were planted in gardens in Singapore and half in Ceylon, and from those few seeds this great industry has arisen. In 1900 the importation of rubber to this country was four tons, but to-day, in 1917, it is 192,000 tons. The acreage in plantations to-day is 1,800,000, and why I am going into these details is only to show that it is absolutely essential that we should do nothing by taxation to injure an industry which has been built up out of the savings of the poorer people of the country and by the industry of our pioneers and colonists. This industry can claim to be purely agricultural. We do not hesitate to tax an agricultural industry in our colonies, but we are very careful not to tax the agricultural industry at home, and I see no reason why you should tax one and let off the other. Our particular claim to-day is that owing to the great boom in rubber in 1910–11 this industry was started in those years. In those years enormous tracts of virgin forests were cut down and planted, and the people who put up the money and those who supplied the brains to carry on that great industry knew that no profits would be derived for six, seven, or eight years. It is true that some of the forerunners of this industry obtained large profits before the War, but the greater part of the industry received no profits before the War, and therefore, instead of being able to take a pre-war standard, they have had to trust to the percentage basis. It is true that the Board of Referees have raised that basis from 6 per cent, to 10 per cent., but I ask any Member of this House whether he would himself in 1910 or 1911 have invested in a rubber company if he had known that he would have had to wait till 1917, and then only get 10 per cent.? It stands to reason that under those circumstances the great rubber industry would never have come into existence.
    It is on these grounds that we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look sympathetically upon our demand that we should receive favourable treatment. I know he will say at once, "Look at the great profits which some of these companies are making." It is true that the

    1373
    industry has made great profits, but it is not fair to take those companies that are paying very large and high percentages. They were not placed on the market at the time of the great boom, and, although they get a very high percentage, practically the whole of the shares were placed on the market at a very high price, and the present owners in nearly every case have paid very much more than the value of the shares as shown on the balance-sheets of the companies. We claim that the hardship affects not merely a few individual cases, but the greater number of the companies. This industry in the length of period, namely, eight years, required for development has few, if any, parallels, and the period during which development took place coincided with the eight years immediately prior to the War, with the result that the majority of the companies are forced to trust to the percentage basis. It is on these grounds that we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look favourably upon our demand and to try and meet us in some way, even if the proposal we have submitted to him is not such as he can accept in its present form.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend opposite paid me an undeserved compliment in saying that I had displayed wonderful ingenuity and foresight in making investments. I wish it were true, because if it were, probably it would mean that I would be a better Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a matter of fact, I put those sums into ships because they were managed by personal friends, so that I have been rewarded, not for my efforts, but for my sympathy. I am not able to make any claim of the same kind with regard to other investments. It is obvious that this is a very technical subject, and if I were to try to make an exhaustive speech now, I should only bewilder the ordinary members of the Committee, though I hope I should prove to the gentlemen especially acquainted with it that I had examined their case. I have met three deputations at least with regard to this matter, and I should like to say now, what I have said before in connection with this Bill, that, especially in cases of this kind into which the Committee as a whole cannot go, and where, if there is a Division, Members will come and support the Government, it is essentially the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he comes here, to judge as far as he can what is the justice
    1374
    and fairness of the case. I have tried to do that, and I cannot admit that I ought to make any concession with regard to this matter.
    I wish to put the facts broadly before the Committee. It is undoubted that this industry suffers under an essential inequality in the matter of the Excess Profits Duty, but it suffers in precisely the same way as any number of industries in this country, and the only difference is that it suffers actually to a greater degree and the inequality is more widespread over the whole industry. What is the particular case? It is that this is an industry which from the nature of the case must be more or less speculative, because you have to wait a large, number of years— five or six at least—before you can get any return. That is true. But what follows? It follows, if you are to be treated fairly, that you must get a, return which spread over the whole period makes a good investment. That is the test. It is an industry which takes this length of time to develop, but it will go on indefinitely. I do not think anyone has fixed a limit to the length of time that a rubber plantation will go on bearing. Therefore, when the Board of Referees had to decide the percentage standard to be allowed, they would naturally take all these things into account, and in coining to the percentage standard they were bound to take into account ail the facts which my hon. Friends have put before us. I rather think my hon. Friend who spoke last indicated another consideration. In making inquiries into this matter, I have found an absolute conflict of interests between different kinds of rubber estates, and I have been told that as a result of that they did not put this case for a higher standard as fully and as well before the Board of Referees as it might have been put. It is in the power of the Board of Inland Revenue, as perhaps some members of the Committee know, to make it, if not impossible, almost impossible to have the case reheard by objecting. I do not know the facts, but I can say at once that if an attempt is made to get it reopened the Board of Inland Revenue, that is to say, the Treasury, will make no opposition and will leave it to the Board of Referees themselves to decide whether there is a case for reopening the matter on these grounds.
    Mr. ALLEN: Is it possible to get it reopened without anything being inserted in this Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes. The Board of Referees have themselves power to reopen it on their own initiative, though nobody can compel them to reopen it unless they think it necessary. There is undoubtedly in this case a certain amount of hardship, but it was partly in view of cases of this kind that Clause 22 was inserted in the Bill, and I would like to remind my hon Friends the extent to which they are benefited by this Clause. In the first place, there is 3 per cent. additional rate of interest upon all new capital put in since the War. Probably that will be of very considerable benefit to a great many companies. In the second place, we have allowed a period of six years during which you can go back and bring in losses on capital. That, I am told, is going to help this industry enormously, though my hon. Friend should know better than I do. I will explain why it is. There is a curious judgment called the Vallambrosa judgment which has been given in the Law Courts, under which profits taken out of a year's earnings and used to develop an estate are not to be treated as income for the purposes of Income Tax. They escape Income Tax on these earnings. I have actually before me a case where there was a paper loss of something like £30,000 coming from this judgment. This amount is put back into capital, and I am told it will mean a great concession to a great many companies. There is a third way in which they are benefited. Clause 22 will benefit the rubber-growing industry in this way: The original Act authorises an addition to the profit standard of a statutory percentage on unremunerative capital invested within three years, and this Section extends that to six years. I am told that also is of considerable benefit.
    Let me look at the arguments of my hon. Friends. They say that the profits here are not due to the War. According to the basis of the Excess Profits Duty that would make no difference, because the whole basis was not that the profits should be due to the War, but that a man should be getting more during the War than he was getting before. I confess, looking into any case that is put to me as a hard case, that I consider the general effect, but I do not think it can be contended for a moment that the present
    1376
    prosperity of the rubber trade is not due to the War. Let me show how that must be so. Look at the way prices have varied. In 1911 the price was 5s. 8d. per lb., and the number of acres in bearing was 75,000. The next year the number of acres in bearing was 180,000, and the price fell to 4s. l0d. In 1913 the number of acres was 400,000, and the price fell to 3s. 3d. In 1914 the number of acres was 545,000, and the price fell to 2s. 6d. The Committee will see, therefore, that just in proportion to the increase in acreage the price came down. What has happened to the acreage since? It was 545,000 in 1914; this year it is 1,000,000. If one can be certain about anything that has not actually happened, it is that there would have been a downward course in price corresponding to the increase in acreage, and the price now would have been a very low one if the War had not come and kept it up. Instead of coming down the price of rubber is actually higher than it was before.
    7.0 P.M.
    My hon. Friend said that we must not take exceptional cases. I asked my advisers to try and form an estimate of what the profits were on the whole and to ascertain whether, in spite of the Excess Profits Duty, people were getting a return which made it reasonable for them to put their money into the industry. They have done so, and I have got the profits of five representative companies. They are ally as it happens, companies given to me by different deputations of rubber growers to show the different cases of inequality, so-that they were not selected for any reason except for which they were given to us. I am told that they are fairly representative of the industry. In the first of these cases, in the first accounting period, after paying Excess Profits Duty, the return to the shareholders was 21 per cent., and in the second accounting period it was 36 per cent. My reason for giving these is not to show that they are very high returns. Of course, they are high returns, but as my hon. Friends have said, they do not represent the real facts in all cases, because many people holding these shares have paid a great deal more than par for them. So that it is not really that they get this percentage in all cases. What is important is that in the second accounting period, in spite of the Excess Profits Duty, the returns were greater than in the first. The first company paid in the first accounting period 21 per cent, and in the second

    1377
    36 per cent. The second company paid in the first accounting period 19 per cent, and in the second 41 per cent. The third company paid in the first accounting period 12 per cent, and in the second 36 per cent. The fourth company paid in the first accounting period 24 per cent, and in the second 34 per cent. They all show the same increase. In spite of the Excess Profits Duty they have been doing better in the second accounting period than in the first. When we remember that the same kind of hardship applies to all growing industries—for instance, in one case put before us, reference was made to the motor industry—when we find that on the whole they are fully able to bear the taxation, and when we find that taking into account that the test is the amount the companies have made since the War compared with what they made before the War, I do not think that this is a case in which we should be justified in making any exception. One of the points raised in this Amendment was that you should take a different basis of calculation. It is admitted that the industry can well afford to pay a considerable amount, but what they suggest is that we should take an acreage basis or something of that kind. It must be obvious to my hon. Friends— they ought to know it, because I stated it to the deputation—that you cannot deal with one industry in a general tax of this kind in one particular way. If you allow a general principle of this kind in one case, you must allow it in similar cases. That would mean you would be opening up a number of decisions which have been made already, and the result would be to throw the whole plan of the Excess Profits Duty into confusion. I have done my best to examine this case and, although I admit that the industry suffers in a greater degree than most other industries from the special inequalities of the Excess Profits Duty, yet, on the whole, I do say that no burden is imposed upon them contrary to the principle of the Excess Profits Duty and that they are able to bear the burden which that Duty involves.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this increase will go on indefinitely. I do not know whether he means that.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I asked the deputation. I know nothing about this except what I gained from talking to my hon. and gallant Friend and his friends. I put that question to them at the deputa-
    1378
    tion, and I was told that up to now they had not found any period when the young trees cease to bear.
    Sir I. PHILLIPS: That is when the trees are young. I am afraid they cannot look forward to such a hopeful time as the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated. He will find that the increase will not go on indefinitely. However, I am very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sympathetic way in which he has looked into this matter, as I know, from personal experience, he has done. I regret he has not seen his way to accept our proposal, but if he can use his influence to get the case reopened he will give great satisfaction" to the industry.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Abatement of income Tax for Officers in the Navy and Army in Respect of Expenses Necessarily Incurred in Purchase of Uniform.)
    In addition to the statutory abatements allowed to all persons, officers serving in His Majesty's naval and military forces shall be entitled to a deduction from their pay or other income, in the assessment of their liability to Income Tax, of a sum of £50 annually in respect of expenditure necessarily incurred in the purchase of uniform.— [Mr. Peto.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been looking into the matter, and is prepared to accept this proposal.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In principle.
    Mr. PETO: I am very much obliged to him for doing so. It is not merely a special concession to officers, much as they would deserve it. When we consider that when we decided to pay salaries to Members of the House a sum of £100 a year was set aside as representing the necessary expenses, and therefore free from Income Tax, and that only £50 is given by the Government to an officer to pay for his uniform in the first place, and that on active service a uniform has to be replaced at least once a year, and then, bearing in mind the immense number of non-commissioned officers who have been promoted to commissioned rank, who have

    1379
    no resources whatever beyond their pay, the Committee will realise that although we are very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for accepting the proposal in principle, we hope he will not do anything that will whittle down the very bare minimum which I have suggested to meet the absolute net cost out-of-pocket for uniform, which it would not be unreasonable if the Government themselves supplied annually as in the first instance. Expenses of this sort ought not to bear Income Tax when they are required to be expended in the service of the country and not for the officer's benefit at all.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough not to press this Clause. Under Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1913, the Treasury have power to make a regulation. The exact words are
    "fix such sum as in their opinion represents a fair equivalent of the average annual amount laid out and expended."
    We are going to consult with the War Office as to what would be a reasonable amount to lay down.
    AN HON. MEMBER: And the Admiralty.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. PETO: In asking leave to withdraw the Motion, may I hope that the War Office will take the same view as that which the Committee obviously takes in this matter, that the sum named in my proposed Clause is the absolute minimum?
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next three new-Clauses deal with matters already disposed of. The fourth, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) [Amendment of Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915] is a matter we have dealt with in an Amendment to a Clause. The next one, in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) [Abatement of Income Tax for Officers in the Navy and Army in Respect of Expenses Necessarily Incurred in Purchase of Uniform] is a matter that has been already settled. The next three, standing in the names of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree [Postponement of Collection of
    1380
    Income Taxi, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) [Trusts for Infants], and the hon. Member for Devizes [Right of Soldiers and Sailors to Pay Reduced Rates of Income Tax in Respect of their Pay] have all been settled.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Sections One to Nineteen and Twenty-five to Forty-two of Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
    Sections One to Nineteen and Twenty-five to Forty-two of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, are hereby repealed.— [Sir- F. Banbury.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    In the original form in which it appeared on the Paper my proposal included the Mineral Rights Duty. I do not intend to repeal that Duty, which does, I believe, produce some revenue to the country, but I do wish to repeal those parts of Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which not only do not provide any revenue, but provide a loss. I have figures here to show that my statement on that point is absolutely accurate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—earlier in the afternoon criticised the statement made by one hon. Member below the Gangway who talked of £1,000,000 as if it were not a very large amount. That hon. Member said that waste was not economy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that all savings were nearly as good as revenue. That being the case, I wish to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer by providing him with the means of saving what, in his own phraseology, is nearly as good as revenue. I have had a little balance sheet prepared for me which shows the effect of the Land Value Duties. I do not see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood), who generally takes a considerable interest in all questions connected with duties on land. I am sorry he is not here because it might have assisted him in his particular fad if he knew what the financial result of these things is. The period commences in 1010 and concludes on the 31st March, 1916. The cost of the valuation from the 31st March, 1913, to the 1st April, 1914, was £1,393,000. Those figures are taken from the Official Report, and I can give the reference, which I have here. The cost in

    1381
    Ireland during the same period was £39,497. The cost for 1914–15, taken from the Official Report of July 14th, 1915, was £745,000, and the actual cost for 1915–16, taken from the Official Report on October 19th, was £466,000. Therefore, the total cost from the commencement in 1910 until March 31st, 1916, was £3,389,397.
    I will now take the receipts on the other side. The total payments into the Exchequer, after deducting the Mineral Rights Duty, in the period I have named, was £746,096. So that there was a loss of £2,643,301 in that period. Now, when we are spending this large sum of money, and have been discussing during a considerable part of this afternoon the question of the Excess Profits Duty and the infliction of taxation upon industry, I ought almost to be raised to the Peerage for having shown the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury a means by which he can obtain revenue without inflicting any taxation upon any industry or imposing any burden upon any person. In addition to that, I shall set free a considerable number of officials who will be able to devote their energies to fighting the Germans or aiding in other Departments, and so letting loose young men who can bear their share of the burden at the front. About two years ago I brought forward a somewhat similar Motion, but it was limited to the period of the War. I proposed that during the War this valuation should cease, and I was met with a certain amount of opposition on the ground that it was breaking the truce. I hold that it was not breaking the truce, because it was confined to the period of the War; but we have now broken the truce so many times that it has disappeared altogether, and I hope no one will say when supporting, we will say, women's suffrage, which in my opinion has nothing whatever to do with the War, and which is certainly a most contentious subject, that this is breaking the truce.
    There is an argument which may be advanced against me which perhaps ought to be met. I do not think there is very much in it. The supporters of the Land Valuation Department have always claimed that it ought to be credited with certain benefits derived from its activities. That is to say that, owing to the creation of this Department, we have been able to increase the percentage upon estates which have been liable either to Death Duties or the various duties to which estates on the
    1382
    death of the owner are liable. I will give a summary of the result. I have already shown that there is a debit, after paying expenses and after crediting receipts, from 1910 to 1916, of £2,643,301, as the result of the Land Valuation Duties. The increase of the Estate and Succession Duties, due to the activities of the Valuation Department in checking executors' and trustees' valuations, I put at £826,686. I think that as a reasonable statement. I also add the ad valorem stamp of 1 per cent, on deeds of voluntary gift of land and leaseholds. I do not think this can be credited to the Land Valuation Department, because it is to be presumed that the Inland Revenue is sufficiently active and energetic and has sufficient brains to look after its own Department without bringing in The officials of the Valuation Department who, after all, probably are no better than they are. I add £276,579 for that. That leaves an admitted loss of £1,540,036 up to 31st March, 1916. I really think the loss I gave before is the genuine one, but I am anxious to advance every argument which can be advanced by the supporters of these duties, and even admitting all that, the result is up to 31st March, 1916, a loss of £1,500,000. There remains the result for the year ending 31st March, 1917. The result there has been that the Department has cost £315,000 and the receipts have been £85,000, a loss of £230,000.
    When the Government was formed we were told it was going to depart from the old principle of choosing members of this House or of another place, and was going to take in capable men of business who were great economists and thoroughly understood the management of affairs. I appeal to some of these gentlemen, and ask them whether in their private life and in their own business they would, in a time of stress like this, when they were not doing very well, continue a branch of the business which in 1917 cost £315,000 and only produced £85,000, and which, in the six previous years, had resulted in a loss of £1,500,000. Of course, the answer would be no. Why should the English taxpayer be subjected to treatment which the shareholders would not be subjected to by these able and energetic gentlemen who now sit upon that Bench? The last figures I will give are the estimated figures for the year ending 31st March next. The costs of this Department are estimated at £370,000 and the receipts

    1383
    from the Land Value Duties at £45,000, giving a loss of £335,000. There is not the slightest doubt that if there were not some old political prejudices in favour of these duties they would have been done away with long ago. I want to ask the Committee whether it does not think the time has arrived when we might leave sentiment behind, and, in view of the fact that we are a united House, that the ties of party have all vanished, that there is no opposition and no Government, and that we are all united in the sole desire of winning the War, put an end to what is nothing short of a scandal and endeavour to save to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very considerable sum of money.
    Colonel GREIG: I am not a financier, and I therefore venture, with considerable awe, to say a word as to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet. I sit as a humble layman at the feet of the great financial pundit. I have made calculations in haste from his own figures, and obviously I may be wrong. He has told us that the establishment of this institution for levying these Land Value Duties has cost the country something like £3,389,000. On his own figures the capital cost has been decreasing every year since the establishment, because the last figure which fell from him was that this year the expenditure will be £335,000. In the first period it was considerably more, and it has gone on decreasing, and will tend to decrease, something like the instance of the rubber company. We then find that there has been a revenue to the State of £746,000 during the years 1910 to 1916. He excluded from that, and I do not know what the figure is, all the income that has come from the Mineral Rights Duties, which would make it a good deal more. It looks to me as if the £3,389,000, which you may fairly treat as capital expenditure, has yielded to the State £746,000. Working that out on a percentage it is 22 per cent., and divided by five years it is £4 8s. a year. That is not a bad investment for the State, and a good deal more will be coining in an Estate Duties which have not been brought into the figures as given. It seems to me that if the State is wise it will retain the Land Value Duties and refuse to consent to the appeal of the right hon. Baronet. It is very much the same as the principle on which the rubber companies are treated. It was an in-
    1384
    dustry which required a good deal of preliminary expenditure to make it pay. The capital cost is going down and the annual return is increasing.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No. I do not admit the hon. and gallant Gentleman's contention, but he has given the figures correctly until he made his last remark. That is absolutely incorrect. It is quite true that the expenditure has gone down slightly, but it is also true that the receipts have gone down very much, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman said they had increased. Take the last two years. For the year ended 31st March, 1917, the Department cost £315,000, as against receipts £85,000. For the period 1917–18 the estimated cost is £335,000, while the receipts are only £45,000. So that the expenditure has actually increased, while the receipts have decreased; therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman's last statement is quite incorrect.
    Colonel GREIG: May I remind the right hon. Baronet that much of the Undeveloped Land Tax has not been collected yet?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I hope my right hon. Friend will withdraw this Clause. He has started an excellent hare. If he wanted to give an example of how this Clause will help in the prosecution of the War I think he has had it by the way in which his challenge was taken up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whom I always thought one of the gentlest spirits who sat behind me. I do not think there could be any more effective method of putting a stick into a beehive and raking out every bee in the House than introducing in the middle of the War a discussion of land values. It would dissipate the party sitting opposite me as quickly as if a bomb dropped through the House. Of course, there is the reason which my right hon. Friend alluded to, that it would be breaking the party truce. He knows quite well that it is no answer to say that introducing women's suffrage, whether that is a wise or a foolish thing, is breaking the party truce, because the lines of cleavage on that question are not party lines. We can adopt women's suffrage and we can attend to our business in the House of Commons, but if we began to discuss a matter of this kind during the War everything which was not only moribund but dormant in our party spirit would spring once more into life and take possession of us like seven devils.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having made a very excellent speech. He has not alluded to the question before the House in one single sentence. He has not given a single argument either for or against, but he has succeeded in amusing the Committee which is, after all, not a bad thing, without committing himself or his Government to any single principle or any single opinion. Therefore, under these circumstances, I beg to offer my sincere congratulations to the Government for having obtained such a very valuable assistant who will be able to get up, as I believe Mr. Disraeli once requested a Member of this Government to get up, '' and speak at great length but do not say anything." I would like for a moment to answer the criticisms of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Greig). He will, I know, interrupt me if I misrepresent him. As I understood him, he said "the cost for the six years has been £3,000,300 and something, and the net receipts have been £700,000. I choose to assume that the cost is capital, and that therefore the result is a return of under £300,000 on an income of £700,000." Did anybody ever hear of a more extraordinary argument advanced by anyone who had any knowledge of finance? Supposing, for the sake of argument, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a balance at his bank of £5,000. He went and drew it all out, and he said, "that is capital expenditure," and he puts back in the bank £3,000. The net result is he is £2,000 worse off, but according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman he is £3,000 richer, because he has got this £3,000 which he had returned into the bank after taking out the £5,000. If he will excuse me for saying so, I do not think he himself intended that that argument should be taken really seriously, but he thought that somebody must get up and meet my arguments, which were unanswerable, and therefore he said the first thing that came into his head in order that it might be said, "after all, this land valuation scheme has still got one friend left." I do not know that I quite agree with what my hon. Friend said about contentious business. I will not go into it now, but I venture to say there has been a great deal more contentious business introduced during the last year or two than ever before, and the contentious business that has been introduced has not touched the
    1386
    vital spots. There are two vital spots. One is the provision of men and the other is the provision of money. This touches one of the vital spots. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has returned to the House. I hope he will not be annoyed if I say he made a most excellent suggestion earlier in the afternoon. It was to the effect that economy was very nearly as good as revenue. Now, I have been showing him in his absence a method of economy that is nearly as good as revenue. I certainly expected he would have supported me. Perhaps the reason he went out of the House was that he should not be able to hear my argument and be converted by it. But speaking quite seriously, I really think this a most important matter, and I cannot withdraw. If there was any sign of sympathy in the House I would divide. I do not know whether there is or is not, but I certainly cannot withdraw. Therefore, it must be divided on or negatived.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Increase of Exemption and Abatements from Income Tax.)
    Section twenty-one, Sub-section (1), of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, is hereby repealed, and the exemption granted under Section one hundred and sixty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1842, as extended by Section thirty-four of the Finance Act, 1894, to persons whose respective incomes do not exceed one hundred and sixty pounds a year shall be restricted so as to apply only to persons whose respective incomes do not exceed one hundred and fifty pounds a year.— [Mr. W. Thorne.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    If this Clause is carried we should get back to where we were before the rebate was ordered in the Finance Bill of some two years ago. The position I take up is this: That in consequence of the purchasing power of the sovereign having been reduced from twenty shillings to eight shillings, what we call the small Income Tax payer is now being hit exceedingly hard. The man who is receiving about £2 10s. or a little over has to pay Income Tax, and I believe it is impossible for him to do so. I am one of those who believe, more especially at the present time, that any man who is receiving £3

    1387
    a week or less should not pay a single farthing in direct taxation. If you take the high price of commodities at present, the wage earners are being hit more than anybody else in the country. There has been a great agitation upon this question for some considerable time, and I am not quite sure as to whether a deputation did not wait upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago from the Miners' Federation on this question. I find, on looking at the Agenda Paper of the Trade Union Congress, to be held in September, that there is a resolution down in the name of the Miners' Federation with regard to it. There is great discontent in different parts of the country in consequence of these wage earners being called upon to bear this extraordinary burden of Income Tax. I remember many years ago there used to be an old standing Clause in the Socialist programme that anyone who is receiving £300 a year or less should not be called upon to pay Income Tax at all. This is a tax on what I call overtime, because the overtime work by the individual workers is calculated for Income Tax purposes. Therefore, because the State wants the lower-paid working men to work overtime—I am pleased they are working many hours' overtime—they are called upon to pay this tax. I do not think workmen should "be penalised in this way, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to see his way to meet us in this matter. I cannot say for the moment what it would cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Personally, I do not think it would cost a great deal. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, I say that in my humble judgment at the present time, when the price of commodities is so high, it is quite impossible for any wage earner in this country with a family to live on less than £3 a week. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, the price of, commodities has jumped up anything ranging from 106 to 170 per cent., and in some cases a great deal higher. It was stated in the last "Labour Gazette" that there had been an average increase in the cost of commodities of something like about 106 per cent. I wish to point out that the essential things the working classes consume every day have jumped anything ranging from 150 to 175 per cent. Therefore, I say the man receiving £3 a week or less
    1388
    should not be called upon to pay Income Tax at all, because he is already hit heavily by the extraordinary price he has to pay for essential commodities.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to second the Motion. When the Income Tax standard was lowered two years ago from £150 to £130 we were told it was being done on two grounds—first, that the wages of workmen had been advanced, and, secondly, that the workmen themselves would gladly bear some share of the cost of this great War. I can remember when we were discussing this question that we had one or two right hon. Members rising from both sides of the House and pointing out that in their opinion the workmen would be quite pleased to pay a share of the cost of the War. One would have supposed that after having given expression to such an opinion those parties would have been willing to pay their share without grumbling. But the records of the House will not bear testimony to the fact that those parties have borne their share of the increased burden without grumbling. One only requires to go back two nights ago to the Debate which took place on the Finance Bill, when we had one of the interests making a great effort to get some relief. To such an extent were they pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he gave the House and the country some very interesting figures as to the profits that have been made by the shipping industry of this country. As a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, said he was sorry that there were not more Members present to hear the moanings of the shipowners. I think the shipowners, and a large number of other interests in the country, have far less reason to grumble than the working men have. I see from "The Statist" that during 1916 the shipping industry of the country paid an average dividend of 67½ per cent., whereas in 1913 it paid an average of 10½ per cent. I think that proves that that interest had very little reason to complain. The same argument can be applied to many of the industries of this country. I think they have been in a better position since the War began to meet the increased burden than they were to meet normal burdens before the War. The same thing cannot be said of the workmen of the country. What is their position to-day? Their wages have risen on the average from 30

    1389
    to 35 per cent, whereas, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, the cost of foodstuffs has risen on the average at least 102 per cent. We do not mean to contend that the average cost of living has risen by 102 per cent., but the average cost of living has risen at least 70 per cent, over the pre-war standard, leaving the working-class of the country less able to bear any additional burden than they were before the War began. I think this is a case that requires the special consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    Recently, we have been hearing a lot about industrial unrest and the Government has been appointing commissions to inquire into the causes of that unrest. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that here is one of the main points, and in giving consideration to it I would remind him of the saying of Pitt during the Napoleonic Wars. He said that he was more afraid of high prices than he was of the enemy. This is the case we have to put for his special consideration, and I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give effect to the new Clause that has been moved by my hon. Friend, and which I have much pleasure in seconding.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I want to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two considerations in support of this Amendment. I do not think any useful purpose would be served, or that it would help the Amendment, to attempt to differentiate between the sacrifice which any one section of the people is making as against that of another. I am rather going to apply myself to the argument which was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when making the original alteration. In the first place, the primary object of this alteration was that the working classes receiving over 50s. per week should contribute directly to the cost of the War. I want first to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that if at that period it was just, which for my purpose I am not admitting for a moment, that those receiving between 50s. and £3 per week should be subject to Income Tax, the increased cost of living between those two periods has more than wiped out the advantage that was then on the side of the Exchequer. Another point is this. You have a man—the railway man if you like—who prior to the War was getting 35s. per week, and is now in receipt of a war bonus of 15s. That brings him
    1390
    immediately within the Income Tax limit. For the past two-and-a-half years we have had railwayman who have worked between forty and fifty Sundays each year. This has been absolutely necessary in the interests of the State. It has been brought about by the pressure that we have exercised and by the anxiety on the part of everybody to do their bit. These men, for the Sunday, get between 5s. and 10s., put it, if you like, at an average of 7s. 6d. It will be admitted that working the large number of Sundays I have described is in itself a large contribution; but when they know that this one Sunday that we are all pressing them to work and on which they ought to have a rest brings them within the category of Income Tax, I put it to the Committee that it is a real cause of hardship and one that should be considered.
    Then, on the other hand, I want to submit this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to give us the figures, but I have gone carefully into this matter, trying to ascertain what value there was in it so far as the revenue is concerned, and I am assured that there is very little; and for this reason. In the case of the man earning between £2 10s. and £3, applying it to the working classes, with the opportunity that they have to claim abatements for children and other things really does not make it worth the while of the Exchequer. Then, it may be said that they arc not hit. What I am trying to point out is that it is difficult for people with fairly good educations to make out their Income Tax forms, but the irritation and the friction and the ignorance that exist among the poor, humble workers in trying to fill up their forms is a source of irritation and annoyance, and especially as it requires so much attention from the officials themselves in trying to give the information, and then ultimately there may be a reclaim for abatement. The proposal we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept is that he will go back to the original £160—
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is £150 in the Amendment.
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, in the Amendment When you consider all these facts which I have put before the House, and especially the small amount of revenue as compared with the labour, friction, and, above all, the spending power of the civilian to-day, I do not think that whatever the circumstances may have been

    1391
    when this was introduced, the same circumstances exist to-day. On these grounds I support the proposal of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject was discussed at some previous stage, and I am sorry now, as I was then, not to be able to accept this Amendment. I rather agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne) about people not liking to pay. His view was that we are all inclined to kick if we are specially hit. I think that is human nature, and I do not think it is really so much what one of the hon. Members for a Scottish Division said, that they do not like paying at all, as that what people get into their heads is that they are being made, in some peculiar way, to pay more than their neighbours. That was the case in the shipping interest, although I do not known how it was.
    Mr. THOMAS: I thought attack was the best line of defence.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Possibly. In regard to this matter there is no doubt whatever that the increase in the cost of living has made a difference. There is no doubt about that; but what I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman—and I pointed it out to, I think, the deputation from the Miners' Federation when I saw them with regard to this matter and other things, I was not able to accept this, and I told them so—is that everyone, I think, admits that the working classes, no more than anyone else, if able, should bear some share. But the contention is that it should not be direct taxation, that whatever share they bear it ought to be in the form of indirect taxation.
    Mr. THOMAS: No; I favour direct taxation. But my special point is that the indirect taxation that they are now paying on the top of the other is unfair.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought the contention was that they should not pay any direct taxation in any case. Although the increased cost of living makes a difference, comparatively little of that goes to the State in the form of revenue. I gave figures the other day showing how small is the proportion in new taxation of indirect taxes. There has been this great increase in cost which falls on the family, but the hon. Member put the case that I am going to put in a nutshell. He said that a man with £3 a week and a family
    1392
    could not afford to pay it. I say that he does not pay it. He does not pay a penny on it now. This is the position: Before 1914 there was only an allowance of £10 for each child. In 1915 the allowance was increased to £25 each child. That has the effect, for example—and I hope my hon. Friend will realise how important this is—that where a man has an income of £150 a year and two children it brings him a long way below the limit at which this stands. The result is that this tax does not fall on anyone with that kind of income unless he is a bachelor or has a wife without any family. If you are really considering the general effect of burdens on this country, in my belief—and I do not think the hon. Gentleman will differ from me—you will do move to help the serious position which is created by high prices, and you will affect the position caused by high prices, first, by doing your best to keep them on a reasonable level, but if you fail to do that, I think it will be wiser to take the revenue we get in this form and employ it in keeping down necessaries, such as the price of bread. When you consider that this is only paid by bachelors or people without families it is as fair a method as you may get for contributing to the War, and for that reason I sincerely hope the lion. Gentleman will not press this Clause.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not said the last word in this matter. It seems to me that he has absolutely lost sight of one point in connection with it. In the early days of the War, hundreds, nay, thousands, of workmen left their homes, and during the last two years a very large number of other workmen have left their homes, to work in munition factories at a long distance from their homes. Some are married men with no family. They may be earning £3 a week.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: But an allowance is made.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. WILSON: I am coming to that, and that is where the right hon. Gentleman makes his mistake. Hundreds have gone from their homes and are not receiving a farthing of allowance. Men who have gone to the shipyards on the Clyde, the Tyne, at Barrow, and in the Government dockyards in the South, men who went on their own and obtained employment through their trade unions, are getting no subsistence allowance at all, and are com-

    1393
    pelled to pay for their board and lodging where they are working and to maintain their home in the town from which they went. I do say that they are entitled to some exemption. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to raise the Income Tax limit for these men, then, as the representative of the Government in this House, he ought to give a pledge that men leaving their homes in the way I say they are doing should have the subsistence allowance given to them. Almost every day and every week I am receiving letters from the members of my own society complaining that they, as married men, are suffering under this hardship. They cannot, by the way, leave their employment now without the consent of the management of the yards in which they are working and go nearer home. The Government will not allow them to do that, and I say that if the Government retain the services of these men in the way that they are doing they must make some concession as far as Income Tax is concerned, or else by giving the subsistence allowance which is given to the munition volunteer workers. I say that these married men—I am not claiming for the single men—who are sacrificing home comforts, and, practically speaking, are keeping two homes, are entitled either to have the Income Tax limit raised or to receive a pledge from the Chancellor of the Exchequer now that men who can prove that they are keeping two homes going and are not receiving the subsistence allowance shall be paid that subsistence allowance. Many men as well, under similar conditions, living at home, are paying 5s. and 6s. per week, and more than that, in railway fares. They are not allowed to deduct that from their Income Tax return, and I say that some concession ought to be given. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to make the concession now, then, so far as I am concerned, I hope my hon. Friend who moved the Clause will go to a Division. The Clause was down in my name but, unfortunately, I was not in the House when it was called. I do, however, with all the power at my command, support the hon. Member in the case he has put forward, and I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision and will give us a pledge that this matter will be dealt with on Report, or that they will give us a pledge that the men who are not receiving subsistence allowance shall receive
    1394
    such an allowance. But if a Division is taken I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
    Mr. D. MASON: I hope the hon. Member who moved this Clause will go to a Division, for I shall support him. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely misunderstood the attitude of the hon. Members below me as being opposed to direct taxation. On the contrary, I think they have always shown themselves to be enthusiastic supporters of direct taxation, but the reason that I support them in this case is because this is a question of justice. Here you have enormous increases going on in the cost of living, but you have no movement on the part of the Government to meet that. You have no reduction of the Sugar or the Tea Duty, or of the various things which go to make up the family budget. The result is that the working classes are suffering. We, who represent large industrial constituencies, have a right to speak for them, as well as the Labour Members. The feeling throughout the country in regard to the increase in the cost of living is becoming intense. The Government recognise it, and the Prime Minister spoke to the Commission appointed the other day to inquire into the increased cost of living. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury are most directly responsible for accentuating this increased cost of living. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have advanced considerably within the last few months on his previous views, because the hon. Member for Attercliffe Division of Yorkshire, about two weeks ago, asked if he were bearing in mind the effect of the continual debasement of the currency on prices—
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member tries to introduce the subject of the currency on nearly every occasion. I must point out to him that it is not relevant.
    Mr. MASON: I am sorry, Sir, that I have gone rather wide of the Amendment. But if I may say so, and I will pass from it, the reason that we support this Amendment is not that we are opposed to direct taxation, but because, if the Government, through their actions, and the Treasury, so increase the cost of living that the working classes are feeling the great burden, you must have relief in some direction. And if the Government will not, as I believe, make amends

    1395
    for their action by protecting free currency—and we cannot get away from that, because it has an effect on the cost of living—we are entitled to press for a rebate in direct taxation by reduction asked for in this Clause. There is no question, if one gives any study to this matter at all, of the growing problem. The right hon. Gentleman himself very courteously admitted it when he endorsed the statement of Pitt that high prices were even worse than facing the enemy. This Clause is an attempt to try to relieve the pressure on the industrial classes, and I heartily support it.
    Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSON: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for one or two expressions that have fallen from hon. Members in dealing with the subject. I wish more especially to say one or two things in relation to the prices of food as they bear upon the actual living cost of the working classes. Personally, I have always been in favour of every class paying their taxes directly rather than indirectly, but I would like to make this observation, that the taxes on the two things—tea and sugar—not only boar very heavily on the working classes, but, as compared with other classes, they are very unfair. Take the question of the tea duty. We are going to have a 2s. 4d. tea—a Government tea—and I venture to suggest that this 2s. 4d. tea will be purchased chiefly by the working classes. I would like to point out, if I may, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the duty to-day on tea is 1s.
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order; We really must have some regard to the relevance of the Clause. We cannot have these other questions drawn into the Motion now before the Committee.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I apologise, Sir. I desire to keep within the limits of fair discussion, and therefore I will leave that point, if I may make just this one remark. It is this that the shilling duty on 2s. 4d. tea, which the working classes have to pay, is very unfair as compared with the shilling duty on 3s. tea which the upper classes pay. The point which I desire specially to make is this. My friend the hon. Member for West Ham said that the increase in the price of food had been something like 106 per cent, to 107 per cent. Now, the articles of food upon which the working classes chiefly live, and
    1396
    spend their money, are tea, sugar, cheese, salmon, butter, oatmeal, rice, tapioca, haricot beans and potatoes.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Eggs, when they can get them.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: The actual increase in the price of these articles since the War commenced—and I can assure the Committee these are actual prices which were paid before the War and which are being paid to-day—is as follows. Tea, before the War, was costing is. 3£d.; now the same tea is costing 2s. 7d., an increase, roughly of 100 per cent. Sugar before the War was 16s. —
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That would be relevant on the Food Debate, but we are now discussing the Income Tax. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment quite rightly gave a summary in a sentence, but that does not allow other hon. Members to go into details.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Then, Mr. Whitley, without going into any details, may I be permitted to make this final statement, which, after all, is a specific statement. The articles of food on which the working classes mainly live to-day—I will show the figures to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he likes afterwards—the increase in price of the articles of food which I have mentioned is nearer 150 per cent, to 160 per cent, rather than 106 per cent, or 107 per cent.
    Mr. CURRIE: I just rise to ask for an answer to the question which has been put. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have agreed to a suggestion made by my hon. Friend. The amount of money represented by the concession would be very small. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give us the figure that would be involved.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In answer to the hon. Gentleman I must say that it is impossible to give the figure. I would venture to ask the Committee for a decision on this question before a quarter past eight, so that we can start on a new point. In reply to the other hon. Member I would point out that the subsistence allowance has nothing to do with the matter. The fact is that in assessing the income of a workman who has two houses, the extra cost is deducted before he becomes liable for Income Tax. That point was dealt with earlier on the ground that the local assessors were harsh, and I promised then

    1397
    to see the Inland Revenue people and to do my best to see that it was fairly carried out, and I think that this particular hardship does not arise.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I am getting letters every day as to the hardships.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, but it is in connection with the subsistence allowance, which is quite another thing.
    It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of our party having received so many forcible letters on the matter, I am very much afraid we shall have to divide the Committee on the question.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 92.

    Division No. 66.]

    AYES.

    [8.12 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Hinds, John

    Rowlands, James

    Anderson, W. C.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James Henry

    Armitage, Robert

    Hudson, Walter

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    King, Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Mallalieu Frederick William

    Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

    Doris, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhougnton)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Meshan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Finney, Samuel

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    O'Leary, Daniel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hackett, John

    O'Malley, William

    W. Thorne and Mr. Goldstone.

    Harvey T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Ries, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Hewart, Sir Gordon

    Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton

    Johnston, Sir Christopher

    Shortt, Edward

    Boyton, James

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Keating, Matthew

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A.H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)

    Eryce, John Annan

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stewart, Gersham

    Bull, Sir William James

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southward West)

    Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Fdk. (Prestwich)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Tatbot, Lord Edmund

    Clough, William

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Coote, William

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, crewe)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Currie, Georgo W.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Nield, Herbert

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

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Fell, Arthur

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Younger, Sir George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes (Fulham)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Fleming, Sir John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

    Gardner, Ernest

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    F. Guest and Colonel Craig.

    Gibbs, Col George Abraham

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    OUTPUT OF BEER.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
    I consider myself fortunate in having secured leave to move the Adjournment

    1399
    of the House on the ground of the Government's change of policy, because changes of policy on the part of the Government have been so frequent recently that I was rather doubtful whether Mr. Speaker would consider that the mere matter of a change was definite, urgent, or important enough to justify the granting of the Motion. But, the House having supported my request for leave to move the Adjournment, I wish to bring before hon. Members the position in which we are placed with regard to the food supplies of the country through the notion of the Government in reference to the liquor trade, and particularly the brewing trade. Nowhere have the changes and vacillation of the Government been more remarkable than in dealing with the liquor trade. I am not going back to 1915, when the present Prime Minister went on the fiery crusade in Wales. I am not going to refer to the various suggestions which have been made and the Committees which have been set up to deal with State purchase and control. The Government, in dealing with this question, never from the beginning seemed to have a clear policy—
    Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the answer given By the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the question raised by myself, my hon. Friend got leave to move the Adjournment, and I want to know whether we are going to-night to have a general Debate on the liquor question from top to bottom.
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): It is early to ask what will happen later on in the Debate, but the Debate will be limited to the ground upon which leave to move the Adjournment was granted. That was to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the announcement of a change of policy on the part of the Government in allowing an increase of 33⅓ per cent, in the output of beer, thereby causing a further drain of the limited supply of sugar in the country." It will be for me, while I occupy the Chair, to see that the limits of the Debate are kept within these terms.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether your ruling means that the whole policy of the Government with regard to the output of beer is now before the House. Will it not form a relevant matter of Debate? And with regard to the last part of the question, which opens up a
    1400
    wide subject of discussion—namely, the supply of sugar—surely that will be very comprehensive, and there will be no limit whatever to the Debate either upon the policy of the Government with regard to beer or the question of sugar?
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must wait and see until I hear what is said.
    Mr. JONES: I have no desire at all to go beyond the terms of the Notice, or to deal at the moment with the change of policy on the part of the Government. I think, however, that I am justified in saying, in passing, that there is nothing very surprising in the change of policy, but I pass to what the change of policy has been. I merely call to the mind of the Committee what has been the position of the Government in regard to this limitation of the output of beer from the time the country was faced with a shortage of food owing to the work of the German U-boats and the sinking of British ships, and the prevention of cargoes of foodstuffs coming to this country. Early in this year we had a Debate on this question in the House. A Report had just been published by a Committee of the Royal Society, which had been appointed to investigate the question of food supply, and report to the Board of Trade by what method the food supplies of the country could be increased. They made various recommendations. One was that by the reduction of brewing the food supplies could be increased. They gave figures, and they found that the most economical use that could be made of the foodstuffs at present consumed in the manufacture of beer would be to have a direct home consumption of these foodstuffs, which would be a very large percentage of the whole. The quantities of food which are consumed in brewing are very large indeed, and by no means a negligible fraction of the country's total supplies of food. In 1934 the total output of standard barrels of beer was 36,000,000. That had been reduced in 1916 to 26,000,000, owing to the Bill introduced by the late President of the Board of Trade my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). For that reduced output of 26,000,000 barrels a year the amount of foodstuffs used, according to the Committee's Report, was 943,000 tons of barley. 55,000 tons of rice, and 182,000 tons of sugar-large quantities which I say were really a substantial fraction of the country's whole consumption of these articles. On

    1401
    14th February the matter came before the House of Commons, and the Home Secretary then announced that the output would be reduced for the year beginning lat April, 1917, from 26,000,000, which it had been in 1916, down to 18,000,000 for the coming year. What were the right hon. Gentleman's words?—
    "Let me say that if and so far as it is necessary to restrict the output of intoxicating liquor in order to maintain the foodstuffs of the country, the Government are prepared to take every step necessary to attain it. There need never be the slightest doubt on that point."
    He pointed out that the Government rested their whole case for the reduction on the question of the food position in this country and he declared on 14th February that in their judgment it was necessary, in the interests of the food of the people in this country, to cut down the output of beer, thereby saving 300,000 tons of foodstuffs, and even more. But the U-boat menace was developing. Our ships were being sunk at an ever-increasing rate, and nine days after the Debate in this House the Prime Minister came down and made another statement, in which he said that it was not sufficient to cut down the output to 18,000.000 barrels, but that the Government, in view of the position, had determined to cut it down to 10.000,000 barrels for the coming year. I must trouble the House with the very words that the Prime Minister used on that occasion, because they are relevant to the subject which is under consideration of the House. He said, on the 23rd February:
    "The food stocks in this country are lower than they have ever been. They are perilously low, due not merely to the difficulties of tonnage but bad harvest. Under these circumstances, we cannot justify the utilisation of such a large quantity of foodstuffs, except for the feeding of the people."
    Are we to take it that the position as to tonnage has so far improved that the Government are now prepared to justify using in this way an increased quantity of foodstuffs which might otherwise go to feed the people? I want an answer to that question from my right hon. Friend tonight. I will read more of what the Prime Minister said:
    "We have to go beyond that last restriction, we have to cut down the balance of 18,000,000. It is absolutely impossible for us to guarantee the food of this country without making a very much deeper cut into the barrelage of the country, and we must reduce it to 10,000,000 barrels."
    That was on 23rd February. Are you prepared to carry that out to-day? The Prime Minister went on:
    "That means that you will save nearly 600,000 tons of foodstuffs per annum, and that is nearly a month's supply of cereals {or this country."
    Mr. W. THORNE: He does not say anything about sugar.
    Mr. JONES: Perhaps the hon. Member has information from the Government that has been withheld from us. My information as to the position of sugar is that it is more difficult than it has ever been. The Prime Minister went on to say—and even the hon. Member will attach some importance to his words:
    "That is the direct saving. The indirect saving amounts to something which is a good deal greater. One of our difficulties has been horse transport from America. This and the fodder for those horses have been a serious drain on our shipping, and it will undoubtedly release horses for use in France. That is saving transports and large quantities of food for feeding purposes. It will reduce the barrel traffic on our already congested railways, and we are sadly hi need of locomotives and wagons for the Army in France."
    We have been carrying locomotives and wagons over to France, and is the situation so easy now that we are able to increase carrying capacity for these materials? The Prime Minister wound up:
    "Although it undoubtedly involves a heavy sacrifice upon a large and important branch of the community, there is no question that it is one of the most effective contributions that could be made at the present time towards a victorious ending of this War."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 23rd February, 1917, cols. 1611 and 1612, Vol. XC.]
    These were grave words spoken, not hurriedly I believe, by the Prime Minister, and I want to know where has been the favourable change in our traffic, shipping, and food supplies that now justifies this increased output of beer.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What was the date of that speech?
    Mr. JONES: The 23rd of February of this year.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: He has changed his mind since.
    Mr. JONES: That may be so. I am bound to put before the Government this alternative, that either the condition of the food supply was not so serious as they stated it to the country, either they have deceived the country—
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: The food position is not affected at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are only dealing with malt made in February. It has not been increased in any degree, and the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.
    Mr. JONES: I venture to say that malt barley is very good food indeed, and I have eaten bread on the terrace of this

    1403
    House which contained a considerable admixture of malt barley, and I found the bread excellent. I say that either the food position was not so serious as the Government stated, or that the Government are now endangering the health of the country by dealing with these commodities to increase the output of small beer. Are we to take it that all this talk about shortness of bread and of sugar, that all those placards which confronted us upon the walls, that we were to eat less bread, and so forth, were a pretext, or were they telling their friends abroad, "Do not be uneasy; we shall stop it before it goes too far. The people may suffer and go short of bread, the children may go without their sweets, there may be no sugar for making jam, and the fruit may rot on the trees, but remember that there is always the possibility of an increase of sugar for the making of beer when the demand is made." The people, of this country do not mind sacrifices in order to win the War. They are prepared to put up with the hardships of the present rationing system if they believe that to be the outcome of war conditions and necessary for national purposes. But they are not prepared to go without the things they like, on short commons, without sugar or bread, or jam, and various things which have become necessary for their convenience merely in order that there may be a larger output of beer from the breweries of this country. I want to ask some questions of my right hon. Friend upon this new announcement. The first is, how much more beer is going to be brewed in the twelve months? I hoped when I first heard the announcement that all that was meant was, it having been decided to brew 10,000,000 barrels this year, the Government were going to allow increased output in the summer months, when the people presumably required more, and were going to diminish the output in the winter, so that the total for the year would not be more than the amount announced. I gather from the reply to a supplementary question that that is not the case, and that this is to be a permanent increase on the year's barrelage. "What is going to be the total increase on the year's barrelage? Is it only to be for the summer quarter and increased by one-third more standard barrels over the same quarter, which would amount to about
    1404
    800,000 barrels? At what strength is this new beer to be brewed? Are the Government going to carry out their policy of reducing the gravity of the beer in order to supply more of it, I suppose, or of a more wholesome quality? Is the whole of the new barrelage to be of reduced gravity, or have the Government yielded to the protests of certain firms which brew the heavier beers, Guinness, Bass and Allsopps, and are those firms going on brewing the old beer? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not know why not, but I am told the lower gravity beer is far more wholesome and palatable. I admit I know nothing about it.
    Mr. DENNISS: Why do you speak about it if you know nothing about it?
    Mr. JONES: I will do my best. How much more malted barley is going to be used? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) said—
    Mr. DENNISS: On a point of Order. May I submit that the subject should be kept within some bounds? The Notice of Motion, so far as I heard it, only refers to sugar, and the right hon. Gentleman is going into barley, and I ask you, Sir, to restrict the Debate to sugar, and perhaps then one can get some conclusion this evening. There is a very easy solution of it, because if the teetotalers did not take sugar in their tea there would be plenty of sugar for brewing.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not been able to notice anything in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, so far, which calls for my attention.
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman says, Why do we not go without sugar? I see no reason why I should go without sugar in my tea in order that he may drink beer.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Vice versâ. Turn it over quietly and just think about it.
    Mr. JONES: How much more malted barley is going to be used? At present, about 1,000 tons a year is going to be used for the 10,000,000 barrels. Is that going to be increased by one-third? When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs said that no more is going to be used I would point out that the existing stock will, under this system, be used up so much the faster, and, therefore, we shall so much the sooner be face to face with the problem of the malting of new barley for the purpose of making beer.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That is quite true, always provided that the food supply is in such a position that they can brew at all. Nobody suggests that they should brew a gallon of beer unless the food supplies of the nation are in such a position as to allow it to be done.
    Mr. JONES: I am glad to hear that, and I hope it will influence the Government when the time comes. Then there is the question of sugar. Under this system you are going to use more sugar, and I wish to know how much.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The brewers cannot
    get it now
    Mr. JONES: I understand they have a large supply in hand at present. The hon. Gentleman says no, but how long will the present supply last?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I have not the least idea.
    Mr. JONES: Then I do not know why the hon. Gentleman contradicts me.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would point out that it is quite impossible to carry on debate in this way. The hon. Baronet will no doubt have an opportunity of replying, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in possession of the House to address the Chair.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is rather tempting when the right hon. Gentleman addresses me directly.
    Mr. JONES: I am sorry.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am sorry, too.
    Mr. JONES: I will address the Chair. My questions, though addressed to the Chair, are really through the Chair to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. The question I want to put to the Home Secretary is this: Is it safe, having regard to the food position, to allow this extra brewing? After those words which I have quoted from the Prime Minister, what will people think of the removal of this restriction? The people will inevitably say that the Government have not been really telling us the truth about the matter, and that it is evident that the food position is not so bad or they would not allow this increase in the output of beer. My information is that the sugar position is more serious at present than it has ever been. I would ask the Home Secretary to reassure us upon that point. I want to
    1406
    ask why it is that the Government arc now increasing the output of beer? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not!"] Allowing it to be increased. It certainly is not in order to help the brewers. The brewers are not suffering at all as far as their profits go in the restrictions hitherto put upon them. The brewery companies are making larger profits and every day brings records of increased dividends paid by the breweries. I have two reports here which appeared in the papers no later than yesterday. One speaks of record brewing and large dealings, and the other points to the very remarkable profits made by a brewery company. I will not go into details, but will be happy to give them to my hon. Friend should he so desire. I acquit the Government that it is with any idea of benefiting the brewers that this restriction is being relaxed. It is apparently based on a question which was put by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway making a demand for munition workers and farm workers for an increased supply of beer at the present time. If that is really the desire of the Government I will put another question. If they consider that it is necessary for munition workers and harvest men to have a larger supply of beer why not secure it for them out of the present output of beer? Why do they allow a large number of people who are not doing munition work and harvest work to draw upon the food supply of the country through the beer that they use. Did they consider that solution of this difficult problem before they adopted this course? Of course, the Government know perfectly well that this beer is not in the least necessary either for munition workers or for harvesters. There are great tracts of this country where it is the practice not to give beer in the harvest field, and I can introduce my right hon. and learned Friend opposite to a large number of workers, friends of my own, teetotalers all their lives, who each day do as hard physical work as anyone in the country. It is a pure mistake to be told that beer helps men to do a hard day's physical work in the harvest field, or the munition works, or the forges. I received only this morning a letter from a New Zealander in this country who touches upon this very point, which has arisen out of the discussion in the Papers. Ho writes to me:
    "I notice the present beer gag is the cry that the workmen cannot work without beer, agricultural labourers, etc."
    Mr. THORNE: What is the date of that letter?
    Mr. JONES: 4th July, 1917.
    Mr. THORNE: Where is it from?
    Mr. JONES: From Worthing, Sussex; from a New Zealander who has come over to fight for this country.
    Mr. THORNE: What is his name?
    Mr. JONES: R. S. Whincup.
    An HON. MEMBER: What is he? A Prohibitionist?
    Mr. JONES: Yes; he is a Prohibitionist. And let me read to the hon. Member what he says on that point?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: We all know what he is going to say.
    Mr. JONES: He says
    "I used to be a moderate drinker—"
    like the hon. Member—
    "but was convinced against mv will in Waihi, New Zealand, as when working there Prohibition was carried. I forget the exact year. I, together with others, was annoyed, but only for a time, as when I saw" the great difference created in the average home comfort of the working man it was a lesson to me—"
    It would be a lesson to the hon. Member if lie would go there—
    "Homes that had been neglected, wives ill-treated, and children starved were now" quite different."
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
    Mr. JONES: I only read that in answer to the hon. Member.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Why do you not go to New Zealand?
    Mr. JONES: I am sorry that this gospel of mine annoys the hon. Member, but I think I can understand it. The truth hits very hard sometimes.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: So do lies!
    Mr. JONES: But let me read on:
    "I notice that the present beer gag is the cry that the working man cannot work without beer, agricultural labourers, etc. Let me tell you on the vast Canadian prairie harvesting you never see beer, and the men have to work there harder than in England. I have worked in the heavy bush forests of New Zealand swinging an axe from daylight to dark felling the trees. I never saw beer in a bush camp, and if a man introduced some it always resulted in less working efficiency, and the men themselves working on contract never had it for that reason. The yarn that a fireman or stoker needs beer on hot jobs is the silliest nonsense; the more beer you drink on a hot job the thirstier you get."
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman verified that letter?
    Mr. JONES: Not at all. I only received it this morning.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: It might be from a fanatic, like many others.
    Mr. JONESM: Ah, but he was once a moderate drinker!
    Mr. O'CONNOR: How does the hon. Gentleman know? Has he verified the letter?
    Mr. JONES: He says he was once a moderate drinker. I really know no more about the letter than that. It was in my post-bag this morning. Hon. Members who know this subject know perfectly well that this casual opinion by a New Zealander—and I can testify from my own experience that many Canadians share that view—is confirmed by the best medical opinion. I ask the Government if they have any doubt upon the subject to take the opinion of any twelve representative medical men in this country— if they are really going to rest their cause on the argument that their action was really necessary—that it was necessary to provide beer for men at the forge. If that is to be their argument, I challenge them to take instructed medical opinion, and I have not the slightest doubt it will be heavily against them.
    Mr. THORNE: The same might be said of ginger beer and "pop."
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Member is not a doctor. He is guided by his own—
    Mr. THORNE: Common sense!
    Mr. JONES: Here is a report of the expert committee of the Royal Society:
    "Repeated experience has shown that regiments not supplied with alcohol marched further, and were in better condition at the end of the day, than others to which it had been given. Experiments in mountain climbing have given similar indications, the total work done being smaller under alcohol and the expenditure of energy greater. In particular, the records of American industrial experience are significant in showing a better output when no alcohol is taken by the worker."
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Who says so?
    Mr. JONES: That is the evidence of the expert committee of the Royal Society appointed by the Board of Trade to look into this whole question. It consisted of some of the most distinguished medical men in this country, of experts, chemists, and scientific men of the highest reputation.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I believe that now the right hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the mark. The Notice of Motion by the right hon. Gentleman hardly entitles him to go into what is known as the temperance question. If that is allowed, I see no reason why I should now allow a Debate on the whole question. Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should confine himself a little more strictly to the point.
    Mr. JONES: I will. But I was endeavouring to find out why the Government were making this increase, and I thought it was probably on the grounds I have suggested. However, I have really finished that part of my argument. The Government may say that all this is irrelevant, and that what they are concerned with is not the facts of the case, but whether or not there is really this demand on the part of the harvesters and munition workers for this increased supply. I do not dispute, I cannot challenge, the fact that there is a section of workmen who probably at this moment are complaining that they are not getting enough beer. It is said that these men like it, and will not work without it. That I do not for a moment believe ! I think the workers of this country have shown themselves far too patriotic during the War to adopt that attitude, or for a moment, if the Government held it to be necessary, on account of the food supply of this country, that the amount of beer to be given to them should be limited or even prohibited altogether—which is a possibility—to resent that action on the part of the Government, if it was put to them in that way.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Why do you not take up exactly the same attitude?
    Mr. JONES: If the Government are in any difficulty in this matter it is because of what I have endeavoured to put before the Committee in respect to the attitude of the Government, that the people will not believe that things are so serious. I am bound to say that in their action in changing the policy deliberately adopted in February, the Government are teaching an evil lesson to the country. They are teaching the lesson to the country that if there are any restrictions imposed at the present time people affected have only to make a sufficient clamour and the Government will instantly give in. We have seen that in the matter of racing. The Jockey
    1410
    Club, men of influence, clamour against the action of the Government. Letters are written to the newspapers. The Government yield. The Government, in view of the food supply of the country, fix the output of beer at 10,000,000 barrels. A clamour arises, possibly genuine, possibly stirred up. Correspondence arises in the newspapers. The Government yield— and they do this regardless apparently of their own declarations in the past, and, as it seems to me, of the present food supply of the country. Therefore, when it was announced that the Government intended to increase the output; of beer, I asked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order that this matter might be discussed, and we might have a full explanation from the Government of their change of policy. I am bound to say the Government are losing the confidence of the country, which demands a Government which is not blown hither and thither by every wind of popular clamour, but which, watching the interests of the country, sees what is right to be done, and does it, and, having decided upon its policy, has the courage to carry that policy through.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I must at the very outset extend my warm congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on the political ingenuity and the parliamentary skill which have enabled him to deliver one of his oft-repeated prohibitionist speeches. I understood when my right hon. Friend was moving the adjournment of the House that he proposed to deal with this question purely from the point of the sugar supply, and I gathered from the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker that he was to confine himself, according to the terms of his Motion, to that aspect of the question. But really the right hon. Gentleman's speech is typical of the policy of the party which the right hon. Gentleman represents. They are willing to take any possible advantage they can secure for the purpose of advancing those nostrums which the sound sense of the country has repeatedly rejected on the merits. [An HON, MEMBER: "When?"] Always. Everybody knows that if the judgment of this House, as typifying the will of the nation, wanted prohibition, the nation could get it. But my experience of teetotalers is that they are always talking about sacrifices, but that they themselves always like the sacrifices to be made by other people.
    Mr. JONES: Are we all like that?
    Mr. DEVLIN: I suppose we are, but we do not always pose as paragons of perfection like the leaders of the prohibitionist movement. I object altogether to a teetotaler determining what other people should drink. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, in less picturesque terms than he would have done but for the limitation of the Motion, that working men can work infinitely better on water than on beer. How does the right hon. Gentleman know? If I want to find out what is the feeling of a working man engaged in the most vital and laborious pursuit—in our steel works, in our munition factories, or in any other of the arduous physical labour which working men are carrying on to-day—I go to the working man himself, and if I cannot find out from the working man himself what his opinion is, I go to the representatives of the working man, and surely my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham—of whom, at all events, it can be said, that no man has been more eloquent or more powerful in the promotion of all the causes for which this country stands—is a better exponent of the views of the working classes not only on other matters, but on this matter, than the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.
    Mr. JONES: I represent nearly as many working men in this House as the hon. Member for West Ham.
    Mr. THORNE: You take their feeling on the question !
    Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman does not represent them on this question.
    Mr. JONES: Come down to Rushcliffe.
    9.0. P.M.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, I think, in nearly ninety-nine out of a hundred questions in public life. I would vote for him on every question but prohibition, on which I know he is absolutely fanatical. But he is so admirable a representative on all the other questions that I would vote for him, just as people in his constituency do. Therefore I say, if I want to have the opinion of the working classes on what concerns the working classes—and it is the working classes with whom we are concerned in this matter—I do not go to a highly respectable Liberal, but I go to a man who not only
    1412
    represents the people in Parliament, but who lives among the people and understands the working man. All the Labour representatives whose opinions have been expressed upon this question practically have stated, first of all, that a great many restrictions were unnecessary altogether, and that the national interest demanded that this concession should be made by the Government on this question. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we should all be prepared to make sacrifices. I think he ought to sacrifice a violent prewar opinion upon this question to meet the demands of the situation. Undoubtedly, apart altogether from the knowledge we gather from the opinions of the representatives of the working classes, we know, and we understand, that in extremely hot weather like this men who are engaged in sweltering pursuits, in shipyards, steel works and munition factories, want beer, and if they want it they ought to get it. This is not a demand for more drink to make people drunk. Nobody wants that. We are all as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to maintain the sobriety of the working classes. But we ought to approach this question from the point of view of common sense. It is not for me to speak as to English tastes or English appetites, but I take it that it has been a traditional desire of the working classes to be supplied with beer largely with their food, and if they want it they ought to get it. I object to a teetotaler telling me what I ought to drink, just in the same way as I object altogether to people who never go to races determining whether there ought to be races or not. There is something we have been fighting for, and no one more than the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the preservation of our personal liberty. Personal liberty is the right of every man to do what he likes, so long as he does not encroach upon the liberties of others.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: To eat as much bread as he likes in war-time?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, if he can get it, and does not encroach on the liberty of others. I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is suffering from want of bread. He may be suffering from want of beer, which is a disadvantage. No one argues at all that beer ought to be given as a substitute for bread, but, in my opinion, the recent restrictions were never called for by the national necessities. Lord Derby stated, I think in

    1413
    another place, but, at all events, somewhere, that racing was stopped in England and in Ireland, not because of the necessity for food supplies, but because of the force of public opinion. The public opinion was the anti-racing people. The public opinion on this question is the teetotal party. No public opinion seems to count in the mind of these people, unless it is the public opinion of the faddist. No declaration of the public will is to be expressed, unless it is sanctioned by the apostles of these fads. But there is a vast amount of opinion, sometimes dumb, not always articulate. It never counts in all these things, but it is represented by the spirit of common sense, and because the spirit of common sense ought to be the first consideration with the Government, I resent altogether the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. He has told us that he admits that this concession has not been made to the brewers. What is his point? The right hon. Gentleman asks if these concessions are not made to the brewers, to whom are they made? They are made in response to that popular clamour to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the clamour of the people who do the work and make the sacrifice. Everybody knows that sacrifices have to be made, but in my judgment there ought to be no sacrifices called for that are not absolutely essential to the due prosecution of the War. We have to sacrifice our convictions in order to please faddists and fanatics because sacrifice is the order of the day.
    I rose not to deal with this broad question, but to raise a protest against the character of the concessions which have been made by the Government. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman cannot object to this increase in the supplies in Ireland, because no sugar is used at all in the manufacture of porter and stout, which bears the same relationship and corresponds to beer in this country, and therefore he cannot raise any objection on that ground. I altogether object to the method by which the Government is making this concession. As I have stated, beer is practically not consumed in Ireland at all, but stout is, and I may point out to the Home Secretary, who I understand in this matter is going to speak for the Government, that the distilling and brewing industry constitutes perhaps the most vital and the most important of our industries in Ireland in
    1414
    three provinces. I do not think there is any national necessity for these striking assaults upon this great and important industry in Ireland. Three provinces in Ireland have been seriously endangered already by the restrictions which the Government have imposed upon them. I would suggest to the Government that they should allow the porter in Ireland to be brewed at the gravity which is permitted at present, and the 333 per cent, additional supply ought to be upon the same basis as the supply at present. The stout made in Ireland has a great reputation throughout the world, and it is the great brewing industry in Dublin on which the prosperity of that city mainly depends, and if you are going to force these people to supply an inferior article you strike a blow at the character of the manufacture which these people supply. As it is, by your restrictions, you have driven hundreds out of employment in Dublin already, and you have substituted no employment for that which has been taken away from them.
    Not only have those engaged in the trade, as we understand it, such as carpenters and coopers and others, Been thrown out of employment, but a large number of other classes of workers have become unemployed, and the munition work in Dublin is of such an infinitesimal character that it docs not give a corresponding advantage for the sacrifice which this industry has had to make. I understand that one of the purposes of the Government in allowing a 33 per cent, increase is due to the necessity of supplying the agricultural workers with beer in this country, and I would say correspondingly with stout in Ireland. During the last year there have been 700,000 extra acres put under cultivation in Ireland in response to the national appeal for more tillage. Are you going to deny these people, if they want it—I am so strong a supporter of personal liberty that I do not want to force it on them if they do not want it, but they are entitled to have it if they do want it—what they have been accustomed to have even with a more limited cultivation, are you going to deny them their supply of stout? You are going to allow it here in the form of beer, and why not do the same thing in Ireland in regard to stout, and you cannot give them that article unless you allow the gravity to remain what it is at present.

    1415
    Ireland receives no advantage whatever from the concession of the Government, and they will be either compelled to drink English beer or do without this concession altogether. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to consider this aspect of the question, and I ask them to leave the gravity of Irish stout what it is, to give Ireland its corresponding share of the increased supplies, and thereby deal equally and impartially with both countries in this matter. I have also to say that we cannot afford in Ireland to allow the Government for any purpose whatever to continue to strike at the industries of our country. We have suffered greatly in the past by legislation of this Imperial Parliament. You have destroyed many of our great industries, the woollen industry and others in Ireland, and you have left our people almost entirely dependent upon agriculture. And now, during this period of flux, at a time when this country, notwithstanding the War, is living under a condition of boundless prosperity, Ireland has received none of the industrial advantages of the War, if I may express it in those terms, but every time you require something to be done in the interests of the War Ireland has to suffer by it, and the people resent it. That is one of the reasons why, in growing volume, and with greater and deeper intensity, our people are demanding day by day and year by year the ending of this system by which we are controlled in Ireland by this country, without any regard for the peculiar conditions and the economic necessities of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will find that feeling in Ireland on this question is exceedingly strong, and I trust he will make this concession, not to Ireland, but to the spirit of justice which I have ventured to put before him.
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) travelled a good deal beyond the grounds of this Motion. I am not complaining, but I want to point out that his Motion is based on two things: First, that there has been a change of policy on the part of the Government; and, secondly, that we are going to put a strain on the supply of sugar. I think I can show before I sit
    1416
    down that both those statements are without foundation. The restrictions on the output of beer have grown, I admit, from month to month and from year to year as the needs of the country required. We began with an output of 36,000,000 standard barrels. We restricted that to 26,000,000. We proposed to reduce it to 18,000,000, and then when the pinch came the Government reduced it to 10,000,000 standard barrels per annum. Each change was caused by some change in the circumstances of the War which needed a further restriction upon the output, and the only increase to which my right hon. Friend can point is the increase with which we are dealing to-day. The right hon. Gentleman says, quite fairly, that he does not suggest for a moment that we are making this change for the purpose of obliging the brewers. If we took this step with any such object we should indeed be unworthy not only of the confidence of my right hon. Friend, but of every Member of this House. The Government are taking this step for serious reasons connected with the conduct of the War, and for no other reason, and they believe that those reasons compel them to take it. I want the House to consider for a few moments the grounds which induce the Government to make this change. It is a fact—there is no doubt about it—that there is a serious shortage of beer in many parts of the country. That shortage is causing serious unrest and is interfering with the output of munitions and with the position of the country in this War. In many of the great towns, in munition areas, and among harvesters we know that the shortage exists, and there is unrest, discontent, loss of time, loss of work, and in some cases even strikes are threatened and indeed caused by the very fact that there is a shortage of beer. These are serious facts.
    Mr. L. JONES: Does my right hon. Friend really say that a strike has been caused by a shortage of beer?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do say that. The right hon. Gentleman cannot know all these facts, but they are known to Members of the Government. They are known, many of them, especially to the Minister of Munitions, and I am glad that ray hon. Friend (Mr. Kellaway) is here and can speak to them if need be. These are

    1417
    important facts with which any Government desiring to carry on the War would be bound in some way or other to deal. We have to deal with that condition of things. It may be that the only real remedy is that we should take control of the liquor industry of this country. 1 am not putting that out of my mind at all. It may be the only real and effective remedy. I am not disputing that, but it is a matter which takes time and which requires a large staff and a good deal of preparation. It could not be effected without first coming to this House and giving the House an opportunity of discussing the matter and ascertaining their view. A promise to that effect has been given, and that promise, of course, will be kept. The Government, therefore has to find an immediate palliative for the condition of things that I have described. I am not going to argue with my right hon. Friend whether it is wise or not for people to drink beer. I am not going to argue as between beer and coffee, between temperance and prohibition. That has nothing whatever to do with our action, and, if I may say so, it is unwise to bring that kind of argument into this discussion. The point is that these men, who after all know what they want, think that they need beer in order to carry on their work. They find it necessary, and it is not for us to judge. It is not for my right hon. Friend or for me to judge at this time whether they are right or wrong. I think if any one of us were doing the hard exhausting work that many of these men are doing in the factories and foundries day by day and hour by hour we should find that a thirst would come upon us. I do not think that ever my right hon. Friend would escape from that result. He might seek to quench his thirst by draughts of milk and soda or something of that kind, but he has been brought up on milk and soda.
    Mr. SHERWELL: He was once a moderate drinker
    Mr. W. THORNE: Then he is pinching the babies' milk.
    Sir G. CAVE: These men have been brought up on something stronger. It is no use arguing. They know what they want, and after all we have to meet not some medical question whether it may be right or wrong, or some theoretical view of the Royal Society, but a need which these men feel, a thing which they desire and want to have in order to carry on the
    1418
    nation's work. When we see men leaving their work and losing work for a reason of this kind, we have to take that into account and weigh it with other considerations in deciding our policy. I am asked what we are going to do, and though the information would possibly come more appropriately from the Food Controller I hope that the statement I am about to make will be sufficient. It is proposed during the current quarter from July 1 till the end of September to allow the brewing of an amount of beer exceeding by 33£ per cent, the amount already allowed for the quarter. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the amount at 2,500,000. It is not exactly one-fourth of the total 10,000,000 standard barrels per year, because according to practice more is brewed in the summer quarter than in the other quarters. I think the exact amount allowed for this quarter is 2,900,000 standard barrels. It is proposed in addition to allow for this quarter only one-third of that amount, which would be about 970,000 standard barrels. That is the whole amount which we propose to allow. I have been asked whether we propose to make conditions so that the beer shall be less in gravity than it has previously been. We do propose to make those conditions. Of the 33¼ per, cent, it is intended that 13¼ per cent, shall be brewed at a gravity not exceeding 1,036, which is quite a low figure, and that it shall be at the disposal of the Food Controller for distribution in munitions areas and in the agricultural districts for harvesting purposes. Of course, it is no good allowing a further amount unless you take power to divert it to the places where it is most wanted. Therefore, that amount will be at the disposal of the Controller to go wherever he thinks it should go. My right hon. Friend asks me how many bulk barrels will be brewed. I suppose with the addition it will be nearly 5,000,000 for the quarter. I cannot give the exact figure.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is that for the use of munition workers and agricultural labourers only?
    Sir G. CAVE: Only the 13¼ per cent. a brewer will be allowed to brew the other 20 per cent., but he will be required to brew not one-half of that, but one-half of the whole of the beer he brews for the quarter, at a gravity not exceeding the average gravity of his brew in the corresponding quarter of last year. There-

    1419
    fore as regards that half there will be no substantial change in gravity. As regards the other half of his total brew, he will be required to brew it at a gravity not exceeding 1,036, so that we shall secure a reduction in gravity—first, in the 13⅓ per cent, to be brewed for the Food Controller, and, secondly, in one-half of the remainder, which is not to exceed a gravity of 1,036 degrees. That gravity, as hon. Members well know, is a low one compared with the existing figure. We think that a great amount of good will accrue from a reduction of the gravity. It is quite true that both in England and in Ireland there are breweries which brew at a gravity considerably exceeding the figure of 1,036 degrees, and whose names and goodwill depend to a great extent upon their keeping up the gravity of the beer they produce. I quite agree that that is so. It is for that very reason that we give the brewer the right to brew one-half of that which he produces of a gravity equal to his usual gravity—that is, the gravity of last year. The particular purpose of that is to meet the point which the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) made, and made quite fairly— namely, that it is rather unfair to take these high gravity breweries and make them brew all their beer at a low gravity, and so destroy their name and goodwill. We meet that point. We give them the right to brew half their product at the high gravity at which they have been accustomed to brew.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is that half of the new supply or of the total supply?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not quite half of the total supply, but it will be more than half of that which they are now supplying. That will be increased by the 20 per cent. I quite agree that that may involve a loss to some of the great breweries in England and Ireland, which may suffer, in reputation, but I believe they will be willing to submit for national purposes to some amount of loss. If they are not, they have a right to say, "We will not have your concession; we will go on brewing our share of the 10,000,000 standard barrels in the old way." In that way we do not hurt them, and they can go on as they are. If they take advantage of our offer, I do not think they can fairly complain if they are asked for national reasons to reduce the gravity of a part of their product. The hon.
    1420
    Member for West Belfast put his case rather high when he said that Ireland had not shared in any industrial advantage through the War.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I said we had no corresponding advantage.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is rather invidious to make comparisons, but we all know that considerable benefit has accrued to, at any rate, certain classes in Ireland from the War, and that ought to be taken into account when we are considering this matter. We think we have met the special case of some, at all events, of the Irish brewing firms. The hon. Gentleman says that does not apply to all the brewing firms in Ireland. I believe that as regards some of the firms there will be no difficulty at all, and I believe that even the great Dublin firms when they consider the offer made will be very disposed to accept it. At any rate, we think we are dealing with them as fairly as with the other great firms in this country. One thing the hon. Gentleman said was perfectly justified, namely, that there has been a certain amount of labour thrown out of employment in Ireland by reason of the restrictions upon brewing. [An HON. MEMBER: "A large number ! "] I think that is so, and that efforts ought to be made—I believe they are being made—to find employment for all labour of that kind. After all, we need labour. The more good workers we can get, the more pleased we shall be. I am quite sure that the effort will be made—indeed, I know that the matter is being considered— in order to find employment in all cases where men are bonâ fide, out of employment by reason of the restrictions imposed.
    That is, quite shortly, the scheme that will be embodied in the Order. As regards sugar, I do not think there is any cause to complain. The breweries are already limited in their supply of sugar. They are now limited, as my right hon. Friend will probably know, to a certain percentage of the amount which they used in 1915. That ration will not be increased at all. They will have no more sugar than they already have. Therefore, in that respect, I do not think there is any cause for complaint or for the special allegation upon which the right hon. Gentleman partly bases his Motion. In any case, as we all know, not all breweries use sugar. I believe the Irish stout breweries use none. I believe that many of the English

    1421
    breweries use a large proportion of glucose, which, of course, is not sugar and is in no way capable of being used for food purposes. However that may be—I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter—it may be taken that we do not intend to increase in any respect the ration of sugar allowed to brewers. Therefore, in that respect, the change that has been made makes no difference to the food supply.
    There remains, of course, what I agree is an important point in the matter. There is a limited supply of malt now existing in this country ready for use. The right hon. Gentleman seems to commend it for food purposes. I do not believe the malt stock is capable of being usefully employed in the production of food. Such as it is, it is useful for brewing and for brewing practically only. Such as it is, it is true it will be exhausted at an earlier date than it would have been if this Order were not made. The position will be that we must consider, when that time comes in due course, whether the Government can allow further barley to be malted or not. I want to say at once that in coming to a decision, when the time comes, the Government will be governed entirely by the consideration whether the malting can be allowed, having regard to the requirements of the food supply of the people. I do not recede one word from what I said in February last in the sentence which my right hon. Friend quoted to-night, and I am quite sure the Prime Minister would repeat every word he then used. It is the governing principle that the food supply must come first; and it is only if and when, due regard being had to that consideration, barley can be used for malting purposes, that malting will be allowed. I do not think I can make a clearer statement than that On that point I think I am in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But subject to that, surely it is right that we should have regard to the habits of the people, not only as to food but as to the drink which they require for the performance of their work. It is on that principle that we are making the change, and on that principle we are prepared to justify it. I think the House will infer from what I have said, first, that in the steps we intend to take we are guided entirely by practical considerations connected with the carrying on of the War and by no other considerations at all; secondly, that we
    1422
    have taken great precautions to ensure that the increased beer which will be brewed shall not be too high in gravity, and therefore shall be sufficient for the immediate needs of the population; and thirdly, that we reserve to ourselves the full right, when the position of the country in regard to food warrants it, to reconsider the step which is now being taken and to make such Orders as may then be required in the circumstances.
    Mr. COOTE: The Home Secretary has tried to explain many things in defence of the action of the Government, but he has not answered this very important question—whether the situation in regard to the food supply to the people, especially the sugar supply, warrants the step which the Government now proposes to take? He tells us that the working people demand more beer. But we suggest to him that, if it is perfectly necessary that in some districts the working people must have more beer, there arc many districts in which there might be much less beer than at present, and if the Government would only take the trouble, by a little rearrangement, the situation could be met without destroying any more food or the sugar which is so very necessary now in order to supply the necessary food preservation for the many cottage industries that we have all over the country. In hundreds of homes there are little fruit gardens, but the fruit is allowed to die on the bushes because there is no sugar to preserve it. We have done what we can, by questions in this House and by privately impressing on the Food Controller the necessity of conserving some sugar for the preservation of these fruits which are so necessary to the health of the people during the winter, and we are met with absolute refusal. There is no sugar for this very necessary food of the people, but there evidently is sufficient sugar for the manufacture of more beer. It is also said there is so much unrest among the working classes. I contend that the unrest among the working classes is largely owing to profiteering and to the way the working classes are being exploited by the profiteering people all over the country, and it is not a. question so much of beer. The hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) has quoted the Irish situation and speaks as one who knows the working classes. I make him this challenge. I take the city of Belfast, in which there are probably as many working men as in any

    1423
    other city of the same population in the three Kingdoms. Take a plebiscite of these people and I stand or fall by the result. These men have been working since the War started and have kept down strikes and have worked in season and out of season that they might give munitions to the Army and the Navy, and to say they will not work if they do not get beer is a libel on them.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: The hon. Member made no such statement.
    Mr. COOTE: I challenge the Government on this point. It is very easy to find out the temper of the working classes if you take the city of Belfast as a typical case. The hon. Member also said the hay harvesters in Ireland will not work if they do not get beer, and that we have 700,000 added acres and we want a corresponding amount of beer to hurry up the workers. [HON. MEMBEES: "He never said it!"] That is the substance of what he said. If you pay the workers in Ireland you will get them to work without getting beer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Look at the sweaters of Belfast! "] Look at the sweaters in Dublin and compare them with Belfast. Mention has been made of Dublin to show that the people there have no employment. T know a public-house in Dublin, and one of these slum workers, who deplores the condition of things in the neighbourhood of that house, had it watched about four months ago and he found that 225 people entered and left it in one hour, and that at closing time twenty-five women in various stages of drunkenness came out of it. Hon. Members from Ireland say that Dublin is starving. How can it be otherwise? The fact of twenty-five unfortunate women, many of them wives of soldiers, leaving a public-house drunk at closing time is a disgrace to the morals of a nation. The Home Secretary says we must get beer for other parts of the country because we must leave drink in Dublin so that these poor unfortunate women can get drunk. It is also said, "We want more drink in Ireland." I say we want more restrictions on drink in Ireland. Go on board any of the Belfast steamers and look at some of the soldiers going back to France. They have to be helped up the gangway by their wives to get safely on board. On the very last steamer on which I came over I saw four or five cases of it. You will see it every night.
    An HON. MEMBER: Can you see it in London?
    Mr. COOTE: No; because you have restrictions in London. You have a Board of Control working in London, and you have no Board of Control in Ireland. That is another grievance for Ireland, of course. You can drink as you please in Ireland, and so the poor soldier takes all he can, for he knows that when he gets into England he is not going to have as much as he wants and he takes a good load and it is too heavy for him and he falls under it. I want to plead to-night for the sugar supply. I want to plead in the name of thousands of housewives, and if they had the vote you would not treat them as carelessly as you are doing to-night. They want to make preserves for their families and the little children want more bread and they are crying for bread to-night and you give them a stone. The representatives of the trade come here and say that they must have their beer and use as much bread as those who do not want beer, and then they say they are not selfish and they talk of equality of sacrifice. I wonder these men are not ashamed. The Debate from the other side has been engineered in the passages of this House. The trade is out there. It is giving statistics. It is sending in these speakers. It is organised. It cannot come into the House except through its Members, but outside its agents are there organising this Debate to-night. This Debate could not take place without having the agents outside organising and giving statistics to those who come here to speak. I am not here speaking as a temperance man: I am speaking on behalf of the food of the people, and I say if something is not done soon for the working classes the question is going to be serious. Instead of easing off the situation you seem to be accentuating it by what you propose to do to-night. This will have its effect upon the country. You send circulars into every home and appeal to the patriotism ' of the people, to induce them to eat less food in order to win the War, and side by side with it, you are going to destroy thousands of tons of food that ought to go for the support of the people. Of course the people think the Government is humbugging, is play-acting, and is not serious. This will be the feeling of the country to-morrow when the proposals of the Government are read in the Press. I appeal to the Government to pause and

    1425
    to reconsider the whole question, and withdraw the supply from the places where there are neither munition workers or harvesters, but where there are poor people who would be much better without it. If they must give it to the people in the munition areas who want it, they can do so by an adjustment—I question very much whether in many cases they do want it; I think it is largely an engineered cry of the trade—but if there is a real demand for it in the munition areas then it is quite easy by a little adjustment to meet the situation instead of embarking on the new proposals suggested to-night.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I think if all of us were to take the same line as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down there would be civil war in this country before long. We do not want to have exaggerated reports either on one side or the other. I am not going to apologise because I am responsible for this Debate to-night. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is responsible for the position in which we find ourselves, because he seized the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the House this afternoon. I hope Members will look at the question which was down on the Order Paper. The question was about the discontent in various parts of the country in consequence of the shortage of beer. I asked the Government if they were prepared to increase the barrelage. It was a simple question. The matter has been before the House on several occasions, and the result is the Government have come to a decision. I hope nobody will charge me with being in the hands of the brewers or anybody else. As a matter of fact this is not absolutely off my own bat; the question was put before me at various meetings which I have addressed in different parts of the country. I travel as much as any man in this country in the very large industrial centres, and during the last few weeks I have been at Leeds, Brighouse, Cleck-heaton, Leicester, Nottingham, Hull, Lincoln, and other places. At Leicester, where I addressed a meeting, a question was put to me by one of the audience who wanted to know what the Government was going to do to increase the barrelage of beer, as there was serious discontent in Leicester about it. The same night I went to Nottingham and spoke in the market place. It was not a meeting upon the beer question at all; it was on the War to a great extent. Here the same question was put to me. I find in
    1426
    travelling about that there is very serious travelling about that there is very serious. beer. I will ask the Home Secretary whether it is not a fact that the evidence now being tendered to the Commission appointed by the Government to inquire into the state of industrial unrest does not show that there is great discontent owing to the shortage of beer. Amongst others, teetotalers have been asked to give evidence, and also men belonging to the Army, and they all tell exactly the same thing. It will be very interesting to this House when the evidence is collected by these various commissioners. The House will then find that the drink problem is-a serious one so far as the munition areas are concerned. Everybody will agree that the major part of the people of this country drink beer. Nobody I think will dispute that fact. In consequence of the shortage of beer, these people have for some time past taken to drink spirits. If they cannot get one thing they get the other.
    I am sure that this small concession will be the means to a great extent of allaying the discontent that is prevalent in different parts of the country. People say this is for the benefit of the brewers, but I say it is not for the benefit of the brewers. As a matter of fact, brewers are to lose by it. It is evident to me, and I think to all consumers of Leer, that when the concession is made the brewers will have to disgorge some of their profits s that is to say, they will have to reduce the price of beer. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe will not like to see that. He wants the price of beer to be made higher.
    Mr. JONES: Is the price to be reduced?
    Mr. THORNE: Certainly. The consumers will insist upon it. Why should the poor consumers be bled as they are to-day?
    Mr. JONES: Why not have it free?
    Mr. THORNE: Certainly. I am one of those who have advocated in this House free things in many directions. I have advocated free travelling. That used to be an old platform in the Socialist programme. As a matter of fact, you can have nothing free; you have to pay for it in one direction or another. Where labour is engaged it has to be paid for in some form. There is a certain amount of social labour involved in everything, and that social labour has to be paid for in

    1427
    some form. I am not an expert on gravity. I do not know the difference between 40 and 50, but I do know that the major portion of the people of this country drink mild beer. There is no doubt about that. If the Home Secretary will give us a guarantee that we shall have what is called four-ale in London, I think that will suit the working-class man like myself and others. Those in a higher social position than the ordinary rank and file of wage earners can get their glass of stout or bottle of beer or Bass, which the rank and file cannot afford to buy. Of four-ale is brewed, I hope they are not going to charge a bob a quart for it, as they are doing now. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to learn that some of the retailers are selling bitter at 2s. 6d. a quart. If you go over the way you have to pay 6d. a glass, and there are five glasses to the quart. That makes 2s. 6d. a quart. The consumers are being bled—I do not know whether by the brewers or by the retailers, but I know they are being bled, anyhow. I am not at all pleading simply because I find that there are a lot of people who think it is very much better for the workman to work without beer. So far as I am concerned, I have tried both. When I worked in the gasworks I was a teetotaler for seven years, and I do not say that I could not do my work just as well. I do not dispute that for a single moment, but I do say that there are a very large number of wage earners who after doing a day's work like a glass of beer, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion to-night did not read another letter he had to-day from a woman. He was reading a letter from a soldier somewhere down in the country, but as a matter of fact he told me this afternoon that he received a letter from a lady—I think he said from his own Division—and. as a matter of fact, she told him that in consequence of the shortage of beer her husband was eating more food.
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Member is mistaken in saying it was a letter. It was an interview I had with a lady who came from West Ham, and she told me that owing to the difficulty of getting beer there her husband was now in the habit of coming home to supper, and that the result of my efforts to save food had led to a greater consumption of food owing to the demands of her husband for supper.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. THORNE: The moral of that is, give more beer and there will not be as much bread consumed. The right hon. Gentleman charged the Government with a change of policy. I admit there has been a change of policy, and you have had it all your own way, and it has been in your direction on three or four occasions. As a matter of fact, this change of policy was brought about without any consultation at all with the organised workers. My hon. Friends who differ from me upon this question—I know there are deep-rooted opinions on both sides on this question, and that in our party some members take one view and some another; I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is a total abstainer, and therefore there is a division of opinion—will agree with me when I say, as I do unhesitatingly, that if the Government had taken the same line with regard to trade union rules as they have with regard to the liquor traffic there would have been trouble. I am sure of that. If it was good to take the wage-earners into consultation in regard to the alteration of trade union rules, as the vast majority of the workers of this country belong to trade unions, and as the majority of people drink beer, whisky, and other intoxicants, I think the wage-earners are justified in asking, as they did ask on more than one occasion, that they should be consulted by the Government before it took the line of action that it has taken now for two years. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the fruit rotting on the trees. What happened in pre-war days? How many times did we read in the fruit districts about fruit rotting on the trees, simply on account of the high rail freightage? It is only an old argument brought forward with the object of trying to poison the minds of people. In pre-war days there were tons and tons of fruit allowed to rot simply because of the high cost of freightage. It seems to me that the same thing applies now, because if there is a glut of fruit the result will be that the people who own the fruit gardens will not be able to send it to town on account of the high price of rail freightage.
    Mr. JONES: The shortage of sugar is creating a real difficulty in the making of jam.
    Mr. THORNE: I quite admit that, but personally I think that the most convenient way of dealing with the jam question would be to send the fruit to what are called the jam manufacturers and to supply them with the sugar for the purpose of making the jam. I know you meet with another difficulty there, and that there are a very large number of people in this country, particularly the wives of the wage-earners, who like to make their own jam. It would be a very good thing if the Government or the Sugar Commission could see their way to supply people with sugar for the making of home-made jam. I think there is a great deal of fuss made about the sugar used in the making of beer. What about the making of ginger-pop, and lemonade, and things of that kind? If it is good to try to cut off the workmen's beer, why not cut off the ginger-pop and save the sugar in that direction? Why do you not stop the manufacture of the higher-priced chocolates and sweets of that kind? It is a well-known fact that there are very high-priced chocolates made in this country in which a great deal of sugar is consumed, and the ordinary rank and file do not purchase those high-priced chocolates because they have not the money to do it. I certainly would not like to see the ordinary cheaper sweets cut away at all, but there is the possibility of saving a great deal of sugar where these high-priced chocolates are made in the different parts of the country.
    I hope the Members who are going to follow me will not follow in such an excited manner as my hon. Friend over the way, because I think the matter is too serious. I dare say my right hon. Friend here (Mr. Thomas) is going to take the opposite direction. He may say that he has travelled about and has found no discontent. I will say how I find that there is discontent. After I have held a meeting I simply mix with what are called the rank and file, and if you want to test at all the real feelings of the wage-earners, mingle with them. That is the way to find out. I do that, and you can only find out the real opinions of the wage-earners in that way. I say, without any hesitation at all, that if you mingle with the munition and wage-earners in all parts of the country they will tell you that they are dissatisfied with the shortage of beer. The man who gets drunk and "barmy" is no use to the publican, or to himself or his
    1430
    wife and children. It is not that class of man we are pleading for at all. I would not attempt to plead for the man who spends the major part of his money in beer instead of looking after his family, and I do not think that anybody has done more than the organised workers have done to teach people to be temperate in all things. We have done a great deal of good in that direction, and there is a rule in our union that prevents any branch meeting at a public-house. I do not say that if they meet at a coffee house it is the best place to meet at, because often they are not so comfortable in many directions as at the public-house. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Government have made the reasonable concession they have made, and I am quite sure that it will allay the discontent which is prevalent in different parts of the country.
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend opened his remarks by asking the House to believe that he was not in the hands of the brewers. It was not necessary for him to make that statement, because everyone who knows him knows perfectly well that, however much we may disagree or differ, he is always actuated by the very best motives. If any proof were necessary that he was not in the hands of the brewers, he gave abundant evidence of it by intimating that, so far as he was concerned, he wanted beer supplied free, which I presume is sufficient evidence to rule him out from a board of directors at any time. But I want to deal with his arguments, and his experience, became, like him, I go about the country a good deal, and I address very many meetings and very large meetings. Also, like him, I mix with my own people after, with a view to ascertaining exactly what is their opinion. He points, as evidence for has case, to the fact that at certain meetings the question has been asked, "What is the Government going to do with the beer?" That statement is put forward as showing an anxiety on the part of the people on this question, and the danger that something will result from it. Now, my answer to that question would be this: That for all the times that has been asked during the past six months, and for the number of people who have asked it, how many of these same meetings have asked my hon. Friend and myself, "What is the Government going to do with the food of the people?" If we are going to judge as to whether the feeling of the country is

    1431
    in favour of beer or of food, then there is abundant evidence that the answer is that they want food and not beer.
    Mr. THORNE: Both.
    Mr. THOMAS: Indeed, the hon. Member himself proceeded to argue it by saying that the great majority of the people of this country drink beer or spirits. It may be true, but everybody is dependent for food, and what we have to consider this evening is not whether temperance is good or bad—because I unhesitatingly say, as a temperance man, that nothing could be more mean and contemptible than to take advantage of the circumstances of the War to force this question. It is not from that standpoint at all that I approach it. I approach it absolutely from the standpoint of whether the addition, or concession, or whatever you may call it, that has now been made does seriously affect the food of the people; and in that connection I mention sugar. I have a family of five, and for five weeks we had no sugar in our house. If I, who was able to pay for sugar, could not obtain it I can conceive what is the position of my less fortunate fellow working-men so far as their families are concerned. No one is going to argue that sugar is not essential to child life. Everyone knows that women themselves are tramping from shop to shop, that children are going from shop to shop, and that every effort is being made to obtain sugar, and if discontent and trouble are really likely to arise, then I have no hesitation in saying that if the women know and believe that they are short of sugar, not because there is no sugar in the country, but because beer is absorbing sugar which they ought to have, then, indeed, there will be trouble, and that, in my judgment, will be far more dangerous than anything else.
    The Home Secretary made a statement that I was very sorry to hear. I am not going to argue it because he cannot have made it without having some evidence. But I am ashamed—and I speak as a Labour leader; I speak as one who has never been ashamed of his own people and who is proud of his own people—but I am amazed and ashamed to hear that there have been strikes in this country because of the shortage of beer. I should like to examine that. I should like to know exactly the district, and I would go
    1432
    to that district, because I should like to examine it in very close detail. There have been a number of disputes; there is unrest in the country; but it is due to a whole chain of circumstances, and not to one. I cannot conceive, and refuse to believe, in the midst of a war, when our people have done such magnificent work, when over 6,000,000 of our men are serving, when mothers are giving their sons and wives their husbands—that this country is so degraded that they will strike and imperil the success of the War merely on a question of beer. It is because I believe that this is a reflection on the workers that I very much regret to have heard it stated this evening. But I want for a moment to develop this. When the question of drink became a serious factor in the early stages of the War, the present Prime Minister said that one of the enemies was drink, and the greatest. And in this House he, and various spokesmen from the Front Bench, gave figures to show that it was imperiling the interests of the country, and they went on to prove that why it was so dangerous was not because of intemperance, but because of the tremendous amount of time that was lost. As a matter of fact, I then resented the wholesale indictment of the workers, because, just as I believe that temperance is good, and as some workers drink to excess, and some rich people as well, and just as I believe that that is an evil to both, so it is not fair to indict any particular class on evidence of that kind. Therefore, it is remarkable that on this occasion we are told that a concession was being given in order to encourage and to help work, whereas all the evidence that we have had in the past has gone to show that it was to prevent a loss of time which occurred in the factories.
    But I said before that I was not going to argue the temperance question, only to say this, that America is passing through a stage which is remarkable in the world's history. The best opinion in America, even of those in favour and in opposition, is that America is going absolutely dry. Canada is the same. Who will deny, whatever the value of the Russian Revolution may have been, and whatever the future of that country, as a result of that Revolution may be, that the absence of vodka was manifest in Russia and did more to steady the people than anything else!
    Mr. THORNE: It tore the Tsar off his throne.
    Mr. THOMAS: But, as I know my hon. Friend likes a glass, then that ought to be worth the sacrifice of that, in his judgment, even to have accomplished that. I say, with the greatest respect, that the Home Secretary has not proved that sugar is not used. It is not sufficient for him to say that the brewers have been given a certain percentage and that they are not given any more, and that therefore there is no additional sugar used. I understand that that is his point. If that is true, it only shows that the brewers have had too much sugar, because if there is additional sugar used by the decision it is a mere detail to say that you are not supplying them, that they are allowed that amount. The answer is that they have been having too much, and if they have been having too much children have been going short. In this matter I place the interests of the women and children of this country before those of beer, because I believe, in spite of what has been said to the contrary, that if the Government or this House boldly said to the working people of this country that it is a choice between their beer and their children's food or their children's sugar, then the working classes would go for their children. My hon. Friend says, "Why did not the Government consult the trade unions?" I am surprised at his putting that question, because trade unions do not exist for the purpose of being temperance societies, and clearly the Government ought to consult trade unions only on their own particular business, which is the protection of the working man in his economic rights.
    Mr. THORNE: And liberty.
    Mr. THOMAS: If that be so, I submit that the trade unions themselves had better turn themselves into public-houses, if that is the position; but I do say that we have no right to say to the Government, "We want you to consult us on something that we are not only not organised to deal with, but which is no part of our constitution." Therefore I submit that the Government are not to blame for that, but the Government are to blame if they give the brewers sugar for the manufacture of beer, which sugar ought to go to the interests of the children.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): War makes strange bed-
    1434
    fellows. I never thought that the time would, come when I would find myself with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary resisting my right hon. Friend opposite in a Motion which I am quite sure is honestly intended to serve the cause of temperance, and particularly the interests of the War, and I only find myself in this position because I have been forced by evidence which has come to the Ministry of Munitions to conclude that the action which the Government has taken in consenting to this increase in the supply of beer is one which has been necessitated by the experience of a considerable number of munitions centres in the country. I did not know that this Motion was going to be moved until half-past seven to-night, because I had left the House before it was raised, but I had sent down to my room the correspondence which has reached the Ministry on this subject, and my right lion. Friend will see, if he will come down there, a large batch of letters which have reached the Ministry not from brewers, not I believe prompted by brewers or men interested in the liquor industry, but from trade unionists, officers of the Ministry, officers of the Board of Trade, Employment Exchanges, and representatives of precisely those classes of men who are in a position to know what the munition workers and the hard manual workers of the country feel upon this question. Before I refer to the purport of some of these letters, I would like to say that I thought the argument to-night rather beside the point. It has been on the supposition that this proposal of the Government means an increase in the amount of sugar that is going to be used in the production of beer. The statement was clearly made by my right hon. Friend in his reply to the mover of the Motion, that there will be no increase in the amount of sugar used as the result of this proposal of the Government. I agree that it is exceedingly difficult to argue, at a time when sugar is wanted for women "and children, that it should he used at all in the making of beer. But this is not a prohibition Motion. Are you not charging the Government in this Motion of having failed to prohibit the production of beer? If you are, you would be entitled to take the line of argument which has been followed.
    We may as fairly refer to the consumption of sugar in tea, and say that to refrain from using sugar in tea would Increase the supply available for children

    1435
    in the country. If you stopped using sugar in tea, coffee, and cocoa, more would be achieved in increasing the supply for women and children than by stopping the use of sugar for beer. Those who want to increase the supply of sugar throughout the country should think not only of stopping its use in making beer, but of stopping its use in cocoa, tea, and coffee. The purpose for which I rose tonight was to deal with the point that the present shortage of beer has been a, cause of industrial unrest in the country. My right hon. Friend who last spoke was exceedingly indignant because there had been a strike owing to the shortness of beer in one district. It is a fact. I am not going to support the action of those workers any more than the action of any other body of strikers during the War, but the strike to which reference has been made is a fact which the Government is bound to recognise, although that was only one case in which the workers have carried their protest to that extreme length. The letters that have been received by the Ministry of Munition's go to show that the same feeling is widespread throughout the country. I can bear out what the hon. Member for West Ham said just now, that much of the evidence which has been given before the Commissioners inquiring into the industrial unrest has been to the effect that one of the causes of this industrial unrest is the shortage of beer and the increase of the price. It may not be a laudible state of affairs, it is not a good state of affairs, but there it is, and the Government during the War cannot afford to wait until the time that my right hon. Friend reaches his milennium.
    Mr. L. JONES: Have you explained to the workers making these complaints the reason which induced the Government to cut down the supply of beer to 10,000,000 barrels? Has it been put before the workers that this was due to the shortage of food for the country, and that it was against the interests of the country in regard to food, to increase the making of beer?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Does my right hon. Friend really suppose that any body of workmen in this country would need to be told by the Ministry of Munitions what are the reasons why there should be a reduction in the barrelage of beer? The
    1436
    workers' temperance education is much more complete than my right hon. Friend supposes. I would like briefly to go through the evidence which has reached the Ministry of Munitions. We had a strong representation from the authorities of Woolwich Arsenal, who told us that the position there was causing considerable discontent, and the authorities at the Arsenal were afraid that it might ultimately lead to a strike. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) does not agree with the authorities of the Arsenal, who know their business very well, and who know the condition of things there. If he does not agree with the authorities of Woolwich Arsenal, I invite him to go to Beresford Square at the time when the crowd of munition workers are coming out, and to just for a moment leave off his role of temperance reformer and become an ordinary man. I can assure him, with the information learned from those munition works, that the statements which have been made tonight as to the effect of the shortage of beer in creating a spirit of discontent and uneasiness in the minds of the men have not been by any means exaggerated. Here is a letter we received from the Dock and Riverside Workers' Union, a body which represents men doing some of the most difficult manual work in the country, and their secretary, writing, I think, from Swansea, says:
    "Owing to the restrictions on all alcoholic liquors they are only able to obtain other forms of stimulants in a very limited extent, and in consequence owing to the extreme heat to "which they are subjected it has become physically impossible for them to continue at work in anything like a regular manner."
    And here is a letter from Walsall:
    "We have in Walsall and the adjoining South Staffordshire area a large number of iron and steel works engaged entirely in the manufacture of iron and steel for munition purposes. In hot weather such as that we are now experiencing the men always find difficulty in remaining at their work exposed as they are to the great heat of the fires. Water is unsuitable as a drink, and in some cases produce? cramp."
    These letters urge the Ministry to secure from the Government an increased supply of beer. I do not know why my right hon. Friend suggests that was not expressing the workmen's view. We have had letters from many other quarters. I have another letter from Staffordshire, in which the firm write to us:
    "We have been asked by our men to permit them to have a canteen on the wotks at which light beer would be supplied. They say that to enable them to continue working in hot weather they must have beer, and at present they cannot get it in a requisite quantity at a reasonable price."

    1437
    Another is to the same effect from the Enfield district stating that the men engaged in certain works work at a very high temperature and have always been accustomed to a certain amount of beer. A letter from Coombs Wood, is written by the firm at the desire of the men, and I hope it is none the worse for that, and another firm at Tipton requests us to provide a supply of cheap beer, although the writer is a total abstainer. It is worded:
    "We consider that the work is extremely hot and arduous and that the request from the men for weak beer to be provided is a reasonable one, although the writer is a total abstainer."
    Another firm writes:
    "We may say that we hare at present great difficulty in keeping our men at work during this excessive heat, and if we can only be allowed to sell them the two per cent, beer it will be a great help in keeping up the output during the hot weather."
    It is not necessary for me to wade through the letters. They are all to the same effect. They come in such volume that even I, who drank in the milk of the gospel at the feet of my right hon. Friend, have been compelled to see here was a situation which a Government, which was concerned from keeping up the output to the greatest possible degree, was bound to recognise. I put it no higher than that. Anyone who knows, and who had the opportunity of acquiring information which is now being forwarded to the Ministry of Munitions from all parts of this country, that the shortage of beer is one of the causes of industrial unrest, and of the restriction of output, would be forced to the conclusion which the Government has come to. Little as I like the proposal, I say that it is a proposal that no Government could have resisted in the circumstances in which this Government found itself.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I thank the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Government Bench for one thing—they have actually resisted the temptation to call us faddists and fanatics; they have actually refrained from informing us and informing my light hon. Friend {Mr. L. Jones) and those who agree with him that if we could only cultivate those graces of spirit which are displayed by brewers and moderate drinkers we should shortly arrive at the Millennium and carry our temperance reform. I know, however, that the Home Secretary is far too sweetly reasonable to fall into anything of that kind, and really these flowers of rhetoric, with which we are always favoured, are
    1438
    very familiar and do not leave very much impression upon us. I can only say that I understand the resentment which was manifested in the earlier part of the Debate by those who are interested in this subject and those who seem to me to look at the matter with very pre-war views of individual liberty. Leaving that aside, however, I come rather to deal with some of the points put before the House. In the first place, I am not in the least convinced by what the Home Secretary has said about the sugar position The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, spoke with a totally different voice this afternoon. He told me quite definitely that this proposal would mean an increased use of sugar by the brewers. The Home Secretary says the reverse. I leave the Home Secretary to reconcile with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the difference in these statements. I will take it on the lower standpoint. I will assume that the Home Secretary's view is right, and that all that is happening is that the brewers' stock is being called upon and will, therefore, be depleted earlier. Is not that available for the needs of the nation? It is open to one of the numerous committees which govern us at the present time to commandeer this stock of brewers' sugar. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that, at all events, glucose is going to be used. There will be a good deal of jam not made this year. A good deal of fruit will be wasted. Undoubtedly glucose can be used for the purpose of making jam. Why cannot it be taken? The hon. Member for West Ham, I was interested to hear, has been paying a visit to my Constituency. I was down there last week. I did not hear anything about the shortage of beer. In the city which I represent there has since the War been a very large increase of population.
    Mr. THORNE: All the better for the country.
    Mr. ROBERTS: At the present time the population are engaged in a most patriotic way in making munitions. The position at present is that they are being rationed so far as their sugar supplies are concerned on the assumption that their population is 55,000, whereas it is 67,000. It is not unnatural that the odd 12,000 population which is now in the city, as compared with pre-war times, should find sugar supplies short. They laid these facts before me, and asked if anything could be done. Only

    1439
    this morning I received a letter from a Constituent who stated that the retailers had been cut down 25 per cent. He said that some of these retailers would find it very hard to get along, and it might even spell ruin to them. He appealed to me whether I could not get something done. I venture to suggest that something that might be done would be to commandeer these brewers' stocks of sugar. The only answer which I can give is that if you had not been using up the sugar which was wasted during these three years of war in beer, there would have been supplies not merely for my Constituency but for plenty of others. I gather from the return that the brewers use about 3,000,000 cwts. of sugar for beer a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about mineral waters?"] I am quite prepared to stop the supplies of sugar for the making of aerated waters. I have not the least objection to that, but I do say sugar ought to be used as a food, and not wasted. It is a very important article of food, and a source of energy, as everyone knows, and it ought not to be used in this sort of way. It is being wasted by the Government, and there is absolutely no defence for their action. Are the resources of chemistry absolutely exhausted? Why cannot you make this beer out of saccharine?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Because you are not allowed by the law.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If that is the case, I presume it is the fault of the Government. Cannot that be altered?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is an offence to use saccharine for beer. You are liable to a fine of £1,000, or something of that sort.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Why cannot the Government alter it under the circumstances? I know that saccharine is being manufactured in this country in increasing supplies. There is no food value in that. It is only a product of coal tar. You might use that for beer.
    Mr. THORNE: Why use sugar in tea?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If used in tea it is used as a food. If used for purposes of beer it is not. I think the hon. Member is overlooking the fact that in the manufacture of beer the food value is used up and converted into something else. Consequently there is no defence of the Govern-
    1440
    ment on that point. I congratulate them. They are celebrating Baby Week by this interesting change. The whole country is called upon to do everything it can to restrict infant mortality, and everyone who has looked into the facts knows that the beer which the hon. Baronet and others brew is one of the great causes of infant mortality in this country. Instead of suppressing drink to reduce infant mortality—and I notice in the crusade about the Baby Week you most carefully hide from sight the fact that drink is one of the great causes of infantile mortality—you are now going to use up the sugar which the children want. I congratulate the Government, and I congratulate the hon. Member who is responsible for munitions on the placarding of the walls of our cities now with "Eat less bread and win the War." To-morrow I hope the Government will placard the walls of London with "Drink more beer and win the War."
    Mr. THORNE: Rubbish.
    Mr ROBERTS: There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether it is necessary as a War measure. The hon. Member for West Ham is convinced that it is necessary to make this increase for the purpose of winning the War.
    Mr. THORNE:I said nothing of the kind. I said "to allay discontent."
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is very essential if you are going to win the War. Of course, if that could be proved, I should think a case might be made out. But anyone who has been called a temperance reformer is by all the standards entirely ruled out of account, and his opinion is written off; he is a prejudiced witness. The evidence which may come even to the hon Member for Bedford (Mr. Kellaway) may also be interested evidence. We do not know quite what is behind all these agitations, but I know too well the subtle hand of the liquor trade not to suspect that a great deal of pressure has been put on in ways that cannot be traced. If our evidence is rejected I ask him to look with some degree of suspicion on the evidence which has come to him. He told us of employers who have declared that it is essential to have drink to satisfy these men. Will he look up some of the reports which came from employers in 1915 who formed a great deputation to the present Prime Minister advocating prohibition on the ground that we were

    1441
    faced with three great enemies, Germany, Austria and drink, and the greatest of these was drink? Now we are proposing to increase this evil. There does seem a singular discrepancy between these employers at different periods. The hon. Member (Mr. Coote) asked for a plebescite in certain constituencies and you say that we misinterpret the feelings of the working classes. We say that you are unreliable guides and it is no answer for the hon. Member for Bedford to say that temperance reformers have put the case sufficiently before the working men. Does he not know quite well that they would at once answer, "You temperance reformers are at your old pre-war games in order to get your old fads and nostrums." If it is essential in the interests of the country that there should be restrictions, then he is much too complimentary to us. Our testimony would not weigh half so much with them as the testimony of the Government, and my complaint is that the Government has not really taken the working men into their confidence on this question, and they have not put before them with sufficient detail and cogency the argument for these restrictions. The Government on this question have allowed themselves to be swayed first this way and then that, and they have not taken a sufficiently strong line or got into touch sufficiently with working men to point out to them all that is necessary under the circumstances. The Government say that a lot of evidence has reached them that social unrest is caused by these restrictions. A reporter on the "Manchester Guardian" went round the Clyde district, the North of England, and the Tyne districts, and also in Wales, and his opinion was that such unrest as he found was not in any way due to the shortage of beer. There is only one way of dealing with this matter. Will you give us a plebiscite on this point? Will you give us a plebiscite in Scotland, on the Clyde, in Wales, or any part of England?
    Mr. THORNE: You would be beaten anywhere.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think so.
    Mr. THORNE: I will come down to Lincoln with you or anywhere else, and take a vote at a public meeting.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I agree that these restrictions must be backed up by public
    1442
    opinion, but I say that you have taken no means to find out really what is the public opinion.
    Mr. THORNE: I will go down to Lincoln with my hon. Friend and call a public meeting, and take up his challenge.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, a public meeting. I want an official ballot which will have the force of law when it takes place. Do you think, after what we have seen in Canada, that any one of us fears to take a challenge? I am told that in Canada the fears were just as strong, and that they were just as unregenerate before the plebiscite was taken. The House knows what happened there. Practically from one end of Canada to the other, under the war feeling, because they are patriots there—
    Mr. THORNE: Are not we patriots?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think that the patriotism of England has been equal to the patriotism of Canada, and I have pleasure in acknowledging that the Canadians have shown us an example which I only wish more people in this country would follow. That is the challenge I should like to make. You say that the harvesters must have their beer. It is a very bad form of truck. I should not have thought it was a form of payment trade unions like to see.
    Mr. THORNE: No it is over and above payment.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If you will offer harvest workmen the equivalent in money a great many of them will be only too glad to make their own arrangements. I know that many of them are ready to do it; and I know definite cases where it has been done. What about the Canadian harvest? Why is there this extraordinary difference in patriotism between Canada and this country? Why is it that in Canada, in province after province where the thing has been tested, the people have been willing, for the period of the War, to make this sacrifice? Why is it impossible for us in this country to do anything of the same kind? We have never had the chance. Canada-had the machinery for taking the opinion of the people—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where are their steel furnaces? "] They have some steel furnaces. They have some industrial works. But I thought it was a case of the harvest. There are certainly harvesters in Canada. The Chancellor of

    1443
    the Exchequer is not here, but I must repeat my point that the abatements of the Licence Duty ought to be revised. The abatements of the Licence Duty were given on the definite understanding that the output of beer was to be restricted to 10,000,000 barrels. A million is being presented to the trade on that assumption. Now you are going to increase the output in this quarter. We are not told what is going to happen in the next quarter. It is absolutely unjustifiable to make this present and this gratuitous squandering of public money at a time when there ought not to be any squandering of public money. I know very well it is no use arguing on the point. All the argument in the world will not get the butter out of the dog's mouth. Nevertheless, it ought not to have been given, and the Government is blameworthy for squandering public money in a way they cannot defend. Ultimately, it comes to this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have given a cast-iron pledge to the Trade. He has not yet got a leg to stand on in argument, he has given his pledge already and cannot withdraw it.
    Sir G. CAVE: An Amendment for the purpose of modifying the reduction in the Licence Duties in the event of the Restriction Order being modified was actually put on the Paper by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not moved only because the Chairman ruled that it could not be moved in that particular form.
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is not too late to do it. Will it be possible to bring it forward in another form on the Report stage? The Home Secretary encourages me to think it can be done. In that case I will modify the pessimism I have expressed and merely say that he is doing the right thing so far as that is concerned. I hope I may take that as a definite pledge.
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot give that because I have not consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it. When the right hon. Gentleman attacks the Government for doing what he says is the wrong thing he ought to remember that we actually proposed to meet this case in the Bill. I have not seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, therefore I cannot say what will be done.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think the Amendment went as far as that. Sup-
    1444
    posing the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to reduce the abatement in the Licence Duty by 75 per cent., as he cannot make this particular Amendment, owing to the objection of the Chairman of Committees—no doubt quite rightly—I ask him definitely will he reduce that abatement to 50 per cent, instead of 75 per cent., as that is the correct arithmetical proportion? The only other point I wish to make is this: The Government has chosen to take this action. Of course, we cannot prevent it. I must tell the Government that it is doing some damage to its position in the country at large. Personally, I am not attacking the Government with any desire to weaken its position. I quite recognise that it is trustee for the nation in the conduct of a great war. Weak action of this kind, concessions here and concessions there, do not strengthen the position and prestige of the Government. They have not improved their position by their action in regard to horse-racing. I see in the Press that even in Newmarket circles they are called "the squeezables" After all, they have been subject to pressure. They have not taken their own line. They have been subject to these influences and the feeling of the country, which is much stronger than the feeling in the House, will, I am quite certain, be rather shocked by them. The Government will suffer in prestige by what it is doing to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a matter of opinion ! "] It is my opinion, and I have some ground for holding it.
    Secondly, here is Canada, watching this, proud of the sacrifices which it has made, feeling that the Mother Country is too alcoholised to follow its example. It will be by no means to the credit, and it will not improve the prestige of this country in the eyes of our Canadian fellow subjects, to find that while it has been clearing away from the whole of the country something which it regards as being an obstacle to the prosecution of the War, the Mother Country has been backsliding and is unable to hold to the tentative and partial restriction which it has adopted. It is not at all desirable to have this conflict between the action of the Mother Country and the action of some of our great Colonies. I would again point out to the Government that it will have a very deplorable effect upon the saving and economy which I suppose they still want. They cannot

    1445
    possibly say the submarine menace is over. We were told in the Secret Session a good deal about that, and we know more than the country knows. Do you suppose that even if the submarine sinkings go on j at the present rate there will not come a time of serious pressure, not perhaps next month nor the month after, but within measurable distance? I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty will deny it. He may be able to assure us that it is not necessary to continue these restrictions, but he has not done so. I am sure the interpretation which the country will place upon this will be deplorable. It is very undesirable that the impression should be produced. I know it is being produced at present. The country feels that the necessity for economy is perhaps abating. The Government is no longer insisting on it. The Government is wasting sugar, wasting food. That will produce a very deplorable effect, and therefore I can only say that on every ground I deplore this action, and if we can do nothing to prevent it we can only record our doubtless ineffectual protest and express very great regret that the Government has shown the unwisdom to take this course.
    Mr. A. RICHARDSON: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question based on an experiment which is being tried at Rotherham. I saw in a paper last night that a certain brewery which has a house opposite one of the large steel works there has made an arrangement with the landlord that no beer shall be sold except to workers in those steel works, and the house is open to suit their convenience. Have the Government the power to prevent women from having any beer at all in public-houses during the War, and if the Government has not, have the licensing committees in the licensing areas power to prevent women from having beer in the public-houses?
    Sir G. CAVE: Steps have been taken in some places to prevent women being served at certain hours of the day, and I believe those steps are generally effective. I do not think there is any legal power to take the steps the hon. Member suggests.
    Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
    The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 130.

    Division No. 67.]

    AYES.

    [10.58 p.m.

    Anderson, W C.

    Hinds, John

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Shortt, Edward

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hudson, Walter

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    John, Edward Thomas

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James Henry

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kenyon Barnet

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Clough, William

    King, Joseph

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Coote, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

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

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nuttall, Harry

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Leif Jones and Mr. T. Richardson.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    cher, John George

    Doris, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cator, John

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Cautley, H. S.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

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

    Beach, William F. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hackett, John

    Beckett, Hon Gervase

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Bennett-Goldney. Francis

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bird, Alfred

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W,

    Cullinan, John

    Hewart, Sir Gordon

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Currie, George W.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Brookes, Warwick

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Broughton, Urban Hanton

    Dixon, C. H.

    Horne, Edgar

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Steel-Maitland, Sir A. D.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Stewart, Gersham

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Keating, Matthew

    Philipps, Gen. Sir Ivor (Southampton)

    Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Ward, A. S. (Herts. Watford)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Pratt, J. W.

    Wardie, George J.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S)

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Rees, Sir J, D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Locker Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Yate, Col. C. E.

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Younger, Sir George

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)

    F. Guest and Mr. James Hope.

    Morgan, George Hay

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed.

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from Excess Profits Duty.)
    There shall be added to the exceptions specified in Section thirty-nine of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, the following:—
    (d) Societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts.
    And paragraph ten of the Fourth Schedule of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, is hereby repealed.—[Mr. W. Thorne,]
    Brought up, and read the first time.;
    Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time.";
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: The object of this new Clause is really to put right what the co-operative societies of the country feel is a real grievance, that they should be subject to Excess Profits Tax when, as a matter of fact, they do not in any sense: make what can be considered a profit at: all. In fact, the application of the Excess Profits Tax to them is a misapplication of the Income Tax entirely. The co-operative dividend, for that is the correct term to apply to what is sometimes termed in trade circles a profit, is really nothing but a rebate on prices, and not a profit in any real sense of the word. For example, assume a number of persons determine to purchase at the pit-head a truck of coal, and in doing so are able to make more favourable terms with the colliery proprietor. They then make arrangements to distribute it among themselves, and
    1448
    because of that they are able to allow for themselves a rebate on their purchase. That rebate is an equivalent to the dividend of the co-operator. I have never heard anyone suggest that if men so act. whether Members of Parliament or anyone else, any rebate they are able to get for this, by acting together co-operatively, is entered on their Income Tax return with a view to its being assessed for Income Tax purposes. In this connection I want to remind the House that if there is no profit there can be no excess profit. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten entirely that this question was fully inquired into by Lord Ritchie's —he was Mr. Ritchie then—Committee. A Departmental Committee of that day— 1904—specifically had its terms of reference enlarged so that it might bring within the scope of its inquiry this question of co-operative profits. This Committee, having had this question specifically brought to its notice, after its terms of reference had been fixed, went very fully into the matter and had submitted to it statements on behalf of private traders and by co-operators. It came to this conclusion, that industrial and provident societies enjoy no real exemption from Income Tax.
    In practice, then, it amounts to this, that to suit the convenience of the Inland Revenue authorities the co-operative societies are not taxed on their dividends, and for a very obvious reason, that so few of the members of the co-operative societies are persons who are liable to pay Income Tax at all. An estimate was made in 1904. and it was found that about 1.8 per cent, of the members of the co-operative societies

    1449
    were liable to Income Tax. The number may have been enlarged since by the reduction of the income limit, but still, for the purpose of the collection of Income Tax, it was found to suit the Inland Revenue authorities beat not to apply to co-operative societies the same principle that they did to companies in general. Therefore it is merely a question of application of Income Tax machinery, and the purpose is achieved of applying the tax. if the tax is necessary at all to the individual, in the case of the co-operative society, and by taxation at the source in the case of the company. Co-operators feel that there is, in their case, an attempt to apply to them something which is most unfair. It is sometimes alleged against them, as a reason for the application today of this Excess Profits Tax, that they enjoy huge contracts in competition with the private trader. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I hear that statement cheered—and that, as a result of these contracts, profits are made which should be liable to the Excess Profits Tax. Let me remind the Committee that, as a rule, these contracts ace in the nature of compulsory contracts imposed upon cooperative societies by the Government, and as a rule the contracts are completed at cost price rates, the effect of this being of course that the co-operators in this connection are- discharging al national service at no profit to themselves. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Member opposite that even if these contracts are included in non-members' trade, the percentage of non-members' trade is only about 1 per cent, of the whole, and if they were assessed there would be always the right to make a claim for rebate. I imagine that the Treasury would find it much more convenient not to attempt to get the tax at the source, owing to the great number of applications which would come in later on for the return of the small amounts for which the co-operators in the bulk had been assessed.
    I may call attention to one or two cases of injustice which arise from the application of this Excess Profits Tax to co-operative societes. I have in mind, for example, certain societies which, in pre-war days were not cluing particularly well, and then, as a result of munitions works springing up in their areas and the increase in trade, there is an increase in their profit, so called, but it is really dividend, and the pre-war rate I is taken and a deduction is made from
    1450
    the war rate. Then the difference is multiplied by the number of members, and the Excess Profits Tax is levied on the cooperative societies. This is most unfair from the point of view of the societies, having regard to the growth in munitions areas for which they are not responsible, and they are really, through their distributing agencies, doing National Service, and, I should say, are severely hit in she process. Take actual figures, which will show how unfair is the application of this tax to cooperative societies. Take a person with annual purchases to the amount of £40. The dividend paid by the society is 2s. in the £—his dividend or surplus; surplus is a better term to apply to this than profit; that is what it really is, the surplus on his purchases. The taxation in prewar days is nil. Through the operation of increase of prices the £40 formerly paid for the goods is now increased to £72, shall we say, by the increase of 80 per cent. The dividend, which is still 2s. in the £, is now £7 4s. instead of the £4 which he used to have. The amount of deduction now proposed by the Bill would be £2 11s. 2d., so that his net dividend on surplus is £4 12s. 10d. His rate of dividend, therefore, is reduced from 10 per cent., which it originally was, to 6.4 per cent.
    Some may say that the co-operative society can easily meet this by a reduction in prices. It can, and it will be forced into that position, unless the Government meets the hard case which has been put before them. If the co-operative societies meet the case in this way the small private trader will feel the competition very severely, for he will find that his ordinary customers are diverted through higher prices to the cooperative society. Co-operators are not anxious to deal with the matter in this way. They believe that they have a legal right to exemption from the Excess Profits Tax, and if the Report of the Commission to which I have referred were adhered to by the Treasury and applied logically right through to this Excess Profits Tax, then it seems to me that the case would have been met and the co-operative societies would not necessarily be driven into the position into which they will be driven of lowering prices and hitting the private trader, and not being liable to the Excess Profits Tax. The very fact that the co-operative society can do this shows how unjust and illogical is the

    1451
    incidence of the Excess Profits Tax in this particular case. Then it may be said, "Yes, they have the concession of £200," but let me point out that £200 applied to the co-operative society means no concession at all. Again, there is the charge of 6 per cent, on increased capital, which applied under the Excess Profits Duty to co-operative societies, as they, and as I think too, constitutes an element of injustice in their case. Let us see how it applies to them. The co-operative society is on the basis of individual membership, and where the co-operative society has grown, as many co-operative societies have, through the aggregation of people in munition centres, the co-operator who joins brings his £l or £2 to the capital. Through the application to the co-operative society of the Excess Profits Duty, where you have a large membership, you may have, on the average, a reduced capital per member, yet the society is, forsooth, because of that, liable to be charged by the Treasury on that account. In fact, the way this thing works results in a direct hit at the thrift which the co-operative society is founded to encourage. You hit this surplus, and you really force the co-operative society into a system which reduces this surplus that the Government ought to desire to promote. If it is the intention of the Government to promote thrift, then they ought to remove this Excess Profits Duty in the case of co-operative societies. However this matter is regarded, it seems to me that the Government should take the opportunity of being logical in the application to co-operative societies of their Income Tax proposal. I equally commend to the hon. Gentlemen opposite the Report of the Departmental Committee, and they will find no ground for the application to co-operative societies of the Excess Profits Duty, because there is no profit and, therefore, no reason for the application of the Excess Profits Duty.
    Mr. CLOUGH: I support this new Clause. I myself have a similar Amendment on the Paper dealing with the subject. We are anxious to get this new Clause in order that these industrial and provident societies may be placed under the exceptions in connection with the Excess Profits Duty. This Amendment proposes, in Section 39 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, to add societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. We are also anxious to deal with Provision
    1452
    10 of the Fourth Schedule of that Act. 1 contend that co-operative societies make no profits at all, and therefore the question of the Excess Profits Duty does not arise. I want to go a little further than that, and explain to the Committee that under Provision 10 this Excess Profits Duty is being brought into play on account of the increased cost of the necessaries of life. It is being levied upon that increased cost, and because of that, not only commits an injustice but it is actually perpetrating an iniquity. I have embodied these views in unstarred questions to the Chancellor, and you will find the answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 18th, 20th, and 25th June, and they are entitled "Excess Profits Duty, Co-operative Societies." I think I might make it perfectly clear if I were to set up a little working model from materials gathered from my own experience. I have been a member of a co-operative society for many, many years, ever since the days when it was not considered a vice to cultivate the habit of thrift, and I have drawn regularly my half-yearly dividend from the co-operative. [An HON. MEMBER: "And paid Income Tax."] The dividend, I am talking about. I paid the Income Tax on my shares. It does not amount to very much, but the Income Tax collector always gets the two or three shillings Income Tax upon the shares in the co-operative society. This society is managed by a committee of eight fellow villagers on principles I am going to explain true to life. The sums and the names shall be assumed. I assume that I am chairman of the kitchen committee and the treasurer of my own household. Before the War I spent 20s. per week on my groceries—that is £26 for the half-year. Of that I spent £20 at the co-operative society and £6 with tradesmen in the neighbourhood. I paid that £20 to the co-operative society on the express understanding that by virtue of my membership, if they found after they had reckoned all up that they had managed to supply the groceries for less than the £20 they were to refund to me the difference. They found at the end of the half-year that they had cost them £18 and so they refunded to me the £2 which was called the dividend of 2s. in the £. That is not income, it is not a dividend in the ordinary commercial sense of the term. The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor rightly termed it a discount. It is

    1453
    not a dividend. I was only getting my own money back again which I had overpaid. It came to me, of course, in the guise of savings. I was at liberty to do what I liked with the. £2, and consequently I could put it into the Yorkshire Penny Bank. I submit that that is not a proper subject for Income Tax. Just turn aside and see what happened to my transaction with the tradesmen. I spent £6 with them, and I have not the slightest doubt but that they supplied them to me at a cost all told of £5 8s. But they did not return that 12s. to me, but put it into their own bank. I make no complaint, and I have no grievance against the private tradesmen, although they seem particularly keen to tax my dividend. I do not begrudge them their 10 per cent, dividend, but it is 10 per cent, dividend to them, and, I submit, it is a proper subject to receive the attention of the tax collector. That was before the War. During the War and owing to the War I have been obliged to spend 30s. a week upon the same amount of groceries, that is, £39 in the half-year. £30 of that I spent with the co-operative society, and £9 with the private tradesmen. At the end of the half-year, when the accounts are audited and found correct, the society have found that they had managed to supply those goods to me for £27, so they have refunded me again that £3, or once move a "divi" of 2s. in the £. Hon. Members will understand that if it were profit it was not excess profit, because the 2s. was the same in both cases. Again, however, I must insist they are not profits; they are simply a refund of my own money which I had overpaid. I am amazed to find that under this Provision 10—which we propose to repeal—they rule that I have made excess profits of £l, and claim 60 per cent. Excess Profits Duty, or 12s. I do not know how to put up a working model for this; it seems rather like a clever conjuring trick.
    If we could summon a draftsman from the Treasury he might be able to explain it, but he would have to explain it something like this: "Here are two £1 notes which were the pre-war profits of the hon. Member for Skipton. He spends £20 on his goods and twenty times 2s. is £2. Now we will assume that it is no longer discount"—as my right hon. Friend would call it—"we call it bonâfide profits of £2 prewar; we must call upon the hon. Member to vanish"—so they cause me to disappear
    1454
    and they say that that £2 was the prewar standard of profits for the society. They put the two £l notes in a box, wave their magic wand over the other box, and when we open the other box we find that it contains three £l notes. That is rather astonishing! But no trick can be easier than that during the War. If you can only harness up the increase in the cost of living—because the War automatically, and as a matter of course, has increased the cost of living—and so the Treasury takes full advantage of that fact. They say that I have this time spent £30. I have again received a dividend of 2s. in the £. Consequently (they say) the society made for this member £3 profit, or thirty times 2s., which is represented by the three £l notes, and as £3 is £1 more than £2 they call that £l excess profits and claim 60 per cent. Excess Profits Duty or 12s. They say the more members of the society the merrier—the more multiples of 12s. will flow into the Treasury, I repeat that it is the increase in the cost of living that has worked the oracle. I might have received less dividend this time and yet been assessed for Excess Profits Duty. Instead of 2s. in the £ I might have received Is. 8d. or 50s., and 50s. is 10s. more than £2, and is liable to Excess Profits Duty of 60 per cent., or 6s. The Treasury may plume themselves on their cuteness or smartness in smuggling this Provision on to the Statute Book, but there are many simple-minded folk throughout the country who fail to see the joke or to admire the cleverness of the performers. On the other hand, they are feeling very sore about it. They regard this as a gross imposition, and they think that it has been palmed off on to them by a method which approaches perilously near to an exhibition of sharp practice. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept this Motion. He cannot tell us how much revenue he gets from this. I have asked—and other Members have asked— how much revenue he gets, and he does not know, but whatever it be I appeal to him to accept this Clause, because this Excess Profits Duty is being imposed in. a way that is unworthy of a great State Department.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must confess that the working model which the hon. Gentleman has given as an illustration is not only very interesting, but puts the case very clearly. I am sure, however, in spite of his hopes

    1455
    as to the reply I shall give, he has a pretty-fair idea that I cannot accept the Clause. But I should like to say at the outset that the most interesting thing to me, and the most satisfactory, in the account the hon. Member has given is to find how successfully the representatives of the Inland Revenue get the small amounts due to the Revenue. It is a tribute, which I think The Committee will appreciate, to the serious efforts of the Department, to get into the Revenue all the money to which they are entitled. The hon. Member said that many people throughout the country did not appreciate the joke. Whenever taxation touches certain individuals they are always inclined to think there is some special hardship, and that they are treated worse than their fellow-citizens. I hope the Committee will not consider that I do not realise the importance of this subject, or the amount of feeling, if I do not make a long speech about it, but no new principle has arisen in connection with the Finance Bill this year. We are continuing what was done previously, and I believe the Committee as a whole will think that anything which the House of Commons after full debate—and there was full debate—thought reasonable before in the way of increasing the revenue is more needed now than ever, and therefore no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified, unless in some flagrant case of injustice, in depriving the Revenue of duties previously sanctioned. I may remark in passing that the sharp practice to which the hon. Member has alluded is not the sharp practice of the Treasury, but of the House of Commons, which passed this tax. The War created the need for sacrifices which were recognised by everybody at the time that this duty was imposed. They recognised that we were in an exceptional position, and that every means of getting money that were fair should be adopted. In doing that the whole principle of the Excess Profits Duty was to treat every trade as one industry and to regard excess profits from that point of view. That is the difference between the Income Tax and the Excess Profits Duty. But there is really something else to be said. I do not myself think that in equity it is unfair, and the hon. Gentleman's illustration itself proves it. Let us take his working model. Before the War he divided his expenditure between tradesmen and the co-operative society. Presumably, he did not pay more to the co-operative
    1456
    society than he paid to the tradesmen. Presumably their prices were not higher. It comes to this, that the members of the co-operative society are getting their goods of all kinds at least as cheaply as they can possibly get them in any other way, and yet, in addition, they have something coming back to them. They had a certain amount coming back to them before the War. That amount has increased during the War, and therefore, in my opinion, it is a fair thing for the State to get a share of that excess.
    Take what the hon. Gentleman says about the cost of living. The fact that it is now £3 instead of £2 before the War represents a real gain that he personally has made and a real gain that the society has made through him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Of course it does. Supposing the whole amount had been bought from tradesmen, there would have been none of these profits gained. Therefore, it is an increased profit for the simple reason that there has been a greater saving by buying through the co-operative society. That, at all events, is how it strikes me, and in equity I think this is fair. Members of co-operative societies buy their goods, in spite of the increased cost of living, at least as cheaply as, and probably more cheaply than, if they bought them in any other way. If, after buying as cheaply as their neighbours who have to buy in other directions, something comes back in the way of discount, or whatever you like to call it, it is again due to trading with the co-operative society, and, as such, in my opinion, as a matter of equity, we are in a case of this kind entitled to get a part of it. It really is not a pleasant consideration if I am right in what I am going to say. Let the Committee remember that this was done not only by the House of Commons, but also by arrangement with the co-operative societies. They accepted it. Surely nobody is going to take up this position—that our zeal for the War has cooled and that an arrangement which in the early stages of the War was accepted as fair by those who suffered from it is not to be carried out now when our need is greater. I quite recognise that there is a case here which is widely felt. I do not think that there is any want of equity in the way we are dealing with it. Under other circumstances—and certainly if I were proposing the tax for the first time—I should make a much longer speech in justifying what I was doing, but, in view of the circumstances

    1457
    that we really must get the Bill to-night, I hope that the Committee will not consider that I am showing a want of interest in it by not making a longer speech.
    Mr. McKENNA: I was the author of this Clause in the Finance Bill of 1915, and I think it is due to the Committee that I should say a few words as to how it came to hand in its present form. It is an undoubted fact that co-operative societies, quite apart from the discount repaid to members, do in many instances make profits in the ordinary sense of the term—that is to say, profits made by trading with non-members—and I felt that it was my duty in imposing the Excess Profits Tax upon other tradesmen to devise a Clause which would impose a fair Excess Profits Tax upon co-operative societies. A Clause was drafted with that object, and it was submitted to representatives of the co-operative societies, who discussed the question very fully with me at the time We came to the conclusion, and I think at the time quite rightly, that the actual Clause which we proposed was the best method of dealing with the matter, and I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) to agree with me so far that if prices had not risen his complaint would fall to the ground. His complaint arises solely from the fact that prices have risen and have automatically increased the amount of the total dividend or discount though not the amount of the rate of the dividend or discount. We did not anticipate such a rise of prices as we have since seen, and if that rise had not taken place I believe the Clause as we introduced it in 1915 would have been the fairest possible way of dealing with the excess profits, because, in spite of what my hon. Friend said, he must admit that there are cases in which, in the truest sense of the term, excess profits may be made by co-operative societies; in fact, co-operative societies pay Income Tax in certain circumstances.
    Mr. THOMAS: Not on dividends.
    Mr. McKENNA: Not on dividends, but they ought to pay on the profits made out of non-members. It is a small amount, but it might increase, and as a matter of fact in certain places it was increasing at the time. For my part, I readily admit that owing to circumstances which have since arisen the Clause has not operated in the way we expected at the time. This increase in prices has automatically increased the amount if not the rate of
    1458
    the dividend, and consequently the tax does not operate as we expected it to operate. Let me deal with my right hon. Friend's argument as to whether excess profits ought to be charged where there is an increase of the total dividend though not an increase in the rate of the dividend. I am not sure that I quite follow the case which he put forward. Supposing I deal with two shops, both of which charge me fair and reasonable prices, but only one of which makes a practice of giving me 5 per cent, discount for ready money. When I get that 5 per cent, returned to me as discount from one trader, am I to be expected to pay Income Tax on it again? It is part of my income on which I have already paid Income Tax. We must not confuse discount which is returned as part of a person's expenditure with profit which is his source of income. The two things must be kept distinct. A person who deals with a co-operative society has the advantage that he spends his money for a better return, but his income is no bigger and it is only on his income that he ought to pay Income Tax. He ought not to be charged a special rate because he spends his money in the most profitable manner.
    I feel myself in very great difficulty with regard to the point. I still adhere to the view that there are cases in which co-operative societies ought to pay the Excess Profits Duty, where they do make genuine profits and where they are making more profits during the War than they did before. I am much impressed with the view that the proposed new Clause as it stands could hardly be accepted. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be asked to accept it. It goes far beyond the agreement. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be willing to reconsider the question with his advisers between now and the Report stage? I had the greatest difficulty in dealing with this subject, and should never have introduced the Section as it now stands in the Act had it not been that it was agreed with the co-operative societies as being, in the circumstances of the time, the fairest way of dealing with the matter. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be asked to give up his whole claim to the Excess Profits charge where one is properly due, but equally I am bound to say that, in the actual circumstances, the present existing Section of the Act of

    1459
    1915 has worked unfairly. In these circumstances, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept an appeal from me that he should agree, if he can, with his advisers to reconsider the question before the Report stage.
    Mr. WARDLE: I should like to enforce the appeal just made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have another Amendment on the Paper which, in our opinion, would have met the case much better than the present proposal, but we have been informed that it would be out of order in its present form. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to the proposal that the whole question should be reconsidered. If he with his advisers can draft a Clause, even on the Clause we have put down, which he can move and we cannot, we shall be much obliged to him.
    Mr. THOMAS: In joining in that appeal may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the fact that two of the most eminent lawyers in the country have been consulted by the co-operative societies, as probably he would know—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir J. Simon) and the present First Lord of the Admiralty. Within the last six months they were asked to give a joint opinion upon this particular question, and they were both of opinion that it is unfair, that it is a reversal of the previous policy, and that it cannot be justified. If he will take this fact into consideration and also keep in mind the fact that the co-operative societies are helping the working classes by encouraging thrift, I hope he will be able to meet the case on the Report stage. If he can, I shall be very glad.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must say the fact that my right hon. Friend, who was the author of this proposal himself, says he now thinks it works unfairly makes me inclined to say it is not unreasonable to ask that we should reconsider it; but I wish clearly to say—and I hope the Committee will understand me—that probably this only means that the dispute over it will take place on the Report stage, I promise to reconsider it. I wish also to say to the Committee that the fact that there is no change in principle had the result, which I do not think I need be ashamed to confess, that I have not given close personal attention to this matter. I am
    1460
    sure the right hon. Gentleman will not object to my saying that I was not convinced by his argument. He spoke as if the whole point were the taxation for Excess Profits Duty of trade with those who are not members of the co-operative society.
    Mr. McKENNA: There is another point. There is the other case where goods are sold at a higher price and the rate of dividend is increased—not the total amount paid, but the rate. I think they ought to be liable for Excess Profits Duty, but in this case it is the total amount of the dividend and not the rate which has increased.
    Mr. THOMAS: But they can get excess profits for the lower dividend.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: If a co-operative society puts away an enormous reserve or puts its profits into building extensions, ought not that to pay Excess Profits Duty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it does.
    Sir R. ADK1NS: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the appeal of my right hon. Friend. I hope he will not allow the forecast ho has made that this reinquiry will lead to no alterations to have too much effect upon the way in which he conducts the reinquiry. This matter is really a very serious one of the state of social discontent and of its effect upon thrift in those parts of the country, particularly where thrift has been steadily growing by this means and at a time when the importance of national thrift is greater than it ever was. However this tax has been defended the fact remains that in thousands of cases people are really being taxed in the increased cost of the necessaries of life and that is causing, as I know from careful and extended inquiry in Lancashire, a sense of injustice. They are actually being taxed not on what they get but on what they have to spend in addition, because of the rise in prices. That is working widespread anxiety and discontent. It is disturbing the regular practice of thrift, and it is serious, at a time when you want to have all classes of the community in the mood to exercise the maximum of thrift, to leave this festering grievance. The financial results are trifling, and when the present state of things was not and could not have been foreseen, surely there is nothing derogatory to the Government in being willing to reconsider sympathetically the unfore-

    1461
    seen circumstances, and there is no inconsistency either in the proposal of this tax two years ago and its maintenance last year with its modification now when you find that its results, financial and social, are not what you expected and that circumstances for which nobody blames you have contributed so largely to these results! Therefore if the right hon. Gentleman can make that modification it will have permanent value to the stability of public opinion in a large part of the country.
    Question put, and negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's second Clause—[Application of Excess Profits Duty to Industrial and Provident Societies]—involves a charge, and is out of order.
    Mr. CURRIE: There is another Clause in my name relating to co-operative societies.
    The CHAIRMAN: That comes further on.
    The following stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. G. TERRELL:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowances in Determination of Profits.)
    Clause three of Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1915 shall be repealed and the following Clause Shall be substituted therefor:
    (3) Deductions for wear and tear, depreciation, obsolescence of all assets, buildings, machinery, and plant employed in the trade or business, and expenditure of a capital nature for renewals or for the development of the trade or business shall be allowed to such amount as appears to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be the amount which would be deducted for the reasons or purposes aforesaid by a prudent owner desirous of maintaining his trade or business in a high state of efficiency, and to be reasonably and properly attributable to the year or accounting period in question whether or not such deductions might be allowed under the Income Tax Acts.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Before my hon. Friend moves his new Clause, I should like to make a suggestion. It is absolutely essential that we should get the Committee stage to-night. There was a kind of
    1462
    understanding to that effect, though it was interfered with by the Adjournment Motion. I cannot see any prospect in the immediate future when we can give another day for the new Clauses. The new Clause my hon. Friend proposes to move is a delicate one, raising big issues. I would suggest to him and to the Committee that we should deal with it in the sama way as we have arranged to deal with the Clause relating to valuation of stocks—that is to say, the discussion should take place on the Report stage. An additional reason for doing this is that I should circulate an the White Paper to which I have referred information showing how the Inland Revenue propose to deal with this matter. I think by that method the House as a whole will be better able to deal with that Clause when they come to it.
    Mr. TERRELL: I quite agree to the proposal my right hon. Friend has made, and I hope that the White Paper will be circulated at an early date. I understand the Report stage of the Bill is to be taken within the next fortnight, so that it is necessary that we should have the White Paper at an early date and have ample opportunity of considering it before we come to the Report stage of the Bill. If that is the intention, I quite agree to the suggestion so far as the Clauses in my name are concerned.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I should like to know when we shall have these Amendments before us. As regards the one that relates to wear and tear, it already, apparently, has been issued at Somerset House.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been sent to the firms.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I should like it to be given to this House, so that Members might have a copy. The same applies to the stock and stores proposal. Apparently one relating to wear and tear has been issued; I have a copy in my hand.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I say that both will be in the hands of Members on Monday?
    Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report stage is likely to be taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am sorry I cannot.
    Mr. TERRELL: It will not be on Monday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; nor next week.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment to Section 45 of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.)
    Section forty-five of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall have effect as though there were added at the end as a new Subsection the following words:
    Any person aggrieved may appeal against—

    (a) a refusal of the Commissioners to give any direction or permit any allowance or deduction; or

    (b) the method adopted by the Commissioners in assessing the profits of an accounting period or arriving at the pre-war standard; or

    (c) the opinion arrived at by the Commissioners where the Commissioners have power under the Acts relating to Excess Profits Duty to give effect to such opinion; or

    (d) the exercise or refusal to exercise by the Commissioners of any powers the exercise of which is by the said Acts made dependent on their satisfaction or failure to be satisfied as to the expediency of any course or the existence of any state of facts or otherwise; or

    (e) any direction, determination, or refusal to exercise any powers or discretion by the Commissioners,

    in like manner as a person may appeal who is dissatisfied with the amount of any assessment, and Section forty-five (5) of the principal Act shall apply to such appeals accordingly. Section forty-five of the principal Act shall be read and given effect to as if this Section had always formed part thereof.— [General Sir Ivor Philipps.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I submit this new Clause for the consideration of the Committee. It is intended to enable the taxpayer to have a general right of appeal to the General and Special Commissioners in the same manner—as under the Income Tax Acts. By Section 45, "the Commissioners" mean only the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and not the Special and
    1464
    General Commissioners. So far as I can understand—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—there is no appeal provided at all in respect of any of these matters to the Commissioners except in point of amount. The Finance Act of 1915 places the final decision in the hands of the persons who collect and receive the- tax. They hold the position of policeman, jury and judge. The taxpayer has no right and no appeal. He cannot question their decision. This is a most improper position in which to place either the taxpayer or the officials, and it is an unwise position for the Government to take up. I submit that it causes a rankling sense of injustice in the taxpayer, and that in the official it tends to unsympathetic treatment of the taxpayer. I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman will probably reply that there is already the right of appeal to the General and Special Commissioners, but I would point out that such appeal can only be on the question of amount, and that is the point to which I wish to draw attention. There are many points which have to be considered before the; amount is arrived at—abnormal depression, for example— on which the taxpayer has no right of appeal to the Special and General Commissioners. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this and agree that an injustice does exist.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It really would not be possible to accept this if the tax is to work at all, and I think I can convince my hon. and gallant Friend that that is so. Already in the course of the passage of the Finance Bill through Committee I have shown several times my readiness to make special provision for appeals when circumstances permit. The reason it is not possible to adopt the same system as with the Income Tax Acts is that if we are to get revenue from excess profits there must be some uniformity of arrangement. With the Income Tax which has been collected for several generations, the result has been that there has come gradually about a system of uniformity. That could not happen in a temporary tax like this, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in supposing that this results in harsh treatment. On the contrary, so far as my experience at the Treasury has gone, the complaints of harsh treatment have always been on the ground that those who are acting for us

    1465
    do not carry out the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Commissioners. I do not think there is any ground for the idea that there is any harsh treatment in these cases, but my main reason for saying that this cannot be done is that it would not work. I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that as the Bill has been going through Committee, over and over again in cases on the border line, where it is very difficult to distinguish, we have proposed to give the discretion which he now desires. In these circumstances, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his new Clause.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I hope it will be understood that I made no charges against the officials whatsoever.
    Question put, and negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: There are two further Clauses in the name of the hon. and gallant Member, I think, dealing with rubber questions. Are these not part of one proposition, or would they stand separately?
    Sir 1. PHILIPPS: They stand quite separately.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then in regard to the first— ["Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall have effect as though there were inserted at the end, as a new Clause, the following words: 'Where the pre-war standard is the profit standard expenditure on any part of an agricultural estate or plantation abroad shall not be deducted in computing the profits of the trade or business to the extent to which it was expended before that part of the estate or plantation came into bearing' "]—I am in some difficulty. It appears to me to involve a charge. It is difficult in my position to understand the intricacies of rubber estate management and taxation, but it appears to me to relieve some persons and to add to the taxation of others. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that himself?
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: As I first had it on the Paper I did think that was the case. I took advice on the matter, and put in the first few words. The Clause originally began with the word "expenditure," and I then put in the earlier five or six words, which, I think, bring it into order—at any rate, that was my intention. Of course, if you hold it is not in order, I am out of court in the matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is very ingenious, but I think it will go still further. It will favour some companies and will tax others. I do not know whether the Treasury can help me on the point.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid my right hon. Friend knows much more about it than I do. It seems to me, Mr. Whitley, that what you suggest is undoubtedly the case. While in certain cases it would relieve some companies it would, in fact, involve a charge on others.
    The CHAIRMAN: In that case it cannot be moved. The following Clause is free from that difficulty.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Finance Act (No. 2) of 1915, Fourth Schedule, Part III.)
    Section one of Part III. of the Fourth Schedule of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall have effect as though there was inserted in (c), after "replacement," the word "and", and, at the end. the following as an additional sub-Clause (d),—
    (d) So far as it consists of assets (whether acquired by purchase or otherwise) of or invested in the trade or business of husbandry or the cultivation of plantations abroad, the value of such assets at the end of the last pre-war trade year so far as such assets were then in existence, and with respect to such assets as were acquired after the end of the last pre-war trade year then the value provided in Clauses (a) or (c) hereof, as the case may require, with an adition in either case of any expenditure proved to have been made on or in the development of any such assets since the acquisition thereof. — [Sir I. Philipps.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    In doing so I do not wish to detain the Committee, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to- me this afternoon on another Amendment put for-word by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, after his remarks on that occasion, I think I shall be meeting the views of the very large number of people who asked me to bring up this Clause if I leave it at that, and simply say that we hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to help us, so far as he possibly can, in the direction which he indicated this afternoon.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: You do not wish me to say anything?
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: No. Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief and Composition for Co-operative Societies.)
    Any society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and liable for excess profits duty shall pay such duty at the same rate as last year, namely, sixty per cent., and any such society shall be entitled at its own option to pay in lieu of such duty at the rate of sixty per cent, a sum equal to one per cent, upon its whole sales for the year under taxation at the same may be computed and determined in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations to be made for the purpose by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.—[Mr. Currie.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CURRIE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The discussion we had last year on this matter affected ordinary Income Tax only. This year, of course, we are talking of excess duty. I confess I listened with some disappointment to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I had myself arrived at the conclusion that co-operative societies were being hardly used. I have never concealed my view that so far as ordinary Income Tax is concerned there is a fault in the present position. The fault does not lie entirely with the societies. Circumstances have changed so much that the present position is not satisfactory. However, let that be; I want to talk about Excess Profits Duty. Just now we do not know the facts, and that is another reason why I feel rather a grievance against the Treasury. It seems rather unfair to the House of Commons and the people paying the taxes that you do not have definite information as to how much Excess Profit Duty is being paid by these societies. I am told by the societies that it amounts to between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 If that statement is true I think that that is a great deal more than they should pay.
    I was rather surprised that the hon. Member who argued as to the nature of the surplus earned by these societies spent so much time on the point because
    1468
    I think that we have passed that point. It is admitted that the surplus earned by these societies is not in the nature of trade profit. I admit all that he said, but I think that the compromise arranged last year when the tax was put on was a compromise which, from our experience, is shown not to have been reasonable and fair. I think that the Chancellor of the day treated the co-operative societies with what he had good reason to believe was, and what they accepted as, fairness, and I confess that some of the language which has been used regarding my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor is very unworthy and quite unjustified. For instance, take the language used by one of the directors of the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society, Mr. Gallagher:
    "That method of assessment was arranged by which the co-operative movement was completely had. We were subjected to nothing more or less than legalised blackmail."
    That shows how strongly the co-operative societies feel that the compromise is working unfairly. But I do not think that the language is in the least justified. I think that the co-operative societies in this matter have a case that does not require to be enforced by language of that kind. Of course if these profits are not really commercial profits—and that is the point of view which I take—in logic they should not be liable to Income Tax at all and they should not be liable to Excess Profit Duty. But where I differ from some of my Friends is here. They think that when they have established that quite clearly —and it is established quite clearly to my mind—that ends the matter. I do not think that it does.
    My contention is that it merely takes the matter down to this point, that the fair way to treat a trader or a worker is to satisfy yourself that he pays a Fair and reasonable share of the charges of keeping up the Army and Navy and the Civil Service, without which no trade can exist, and if you cannot find that out by some method placed at your disposal by the Income Tax law, then you have got to find some other way. My suggestion is that another compromise could be arranged between the Treasury and the societies whereby the societies would pay a levy on a turnover which would be a great deal less than £4,000.000 or £5,000,000 a year. It might be £2,000,000

    1469
    a year. That would not be Income Tax precisely, but it would be a substitute for it which would suit them a great deal better than paying the same amount twice over. I admit that there are complications in the way, and perhaps there is no time to arrange a concession of this kind just now. If that is so, then I make a further appeal to the Chancellor that the simplest way of dealing with the matter is to continue the compromise which he inherited from his predecessor, but not to raise the 60 per cent, to 80 per cent, in the case of those societies. The Chancellor has admitted that there is a case for inquiry. He has not committed himself, but so far as the societies are concerned there is a very strong feeling which is not without foundation, and the simplest way of dealing with the matter would be to let the duty stand at the figure of 60 per cent. I would put it to the Chancellor— why should ho not accept this suggestion if there is any case for consideration at all? I do not suppose that at this stage he will have time at his disposal to arrange any new compromise. It is necessary to have the Budget finished very soon, but if there is a case of hardship-though the whole question as far as possible should be left alone, and further discussion should be postponed, yet the rate should be left at 60 per cent, instead of being raised to 80 per cent.
    I do not say that that is a logical compromise. It is simply substituting one compromise for another, and reserving the discussion which must take place until after the War. But certainly I protest against language such as has been used being used towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer of two years ago, who acted perfectly fairly au the time, as the co-operators themselves said. The Parliamentary Committee of the co-operative societies is in a difficulty. It sees the unreasonableness of its own position, and yet it is unable to prove many of the things for which it contends. I know that many of the resolutions passed by the retail traders' societies justify the co-operative societies having a feeling of resentment and apprehension as to what is really their own domestic business being interfered with. I do not believe that the co-operative societies are opposed to paying fair taxes, and I will tell the Committee why. If the non-payment of tax
    1470
    were their sole object they could reduce their prices to the point of paying no taxes at all. Of course they would do it at some inconvenience, because it would interfere with the use of their own movement as a thrift agency which I would very much regret. I think that that is at the bottom of the feeling which the co-operators very often express at the charges of the retail traders. So far as the latter are concerned, I think that they have themselves very Largely to blame for the view which co-operators take of them. Many of their resolutions do express a determination to interfere unduly with the co-operative societies, and I think that they are very unwise. However, I think that the Chancellor has at his disposal means of burying this dispute, and meantime I appeal to him to leave the tax in the case of these societies at 60 per cent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend will expect me to say anything now in answer to his speech. I have already promised to reconsider the whole subject, and there is no object in further discussing it now.
    Question put, and negatived.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.

    RATES OF DRAWBACK ON TOBACCO.

    s.

    d.

    Cigars

    the lb.

    8

    4

    Cigarettes

    the lb.

    8

    2

    Cut, roll, cake, or other manufactured 'tobacco

    the lb.

    8

    0

    Snuff (not being offal snuff)

    the lb.

    7

    8

    Stalks, shorts, or other refuse of tobacco (including offal snuff)

    the lb.

    7

    6

    Amendment made: At the end add:

    Part II.

    s.

    d.

    Cigars

    the lb.

    7

    3½

    Cigarettes

    the lb.

    7

    1¾

    Cut, roll, cake, or other manufactured tobacco

    the lb.

    7

    0

    Snuff (not being offal snuff)

    the lb.

    6

    8½

    Stalks, shorts, or other refuse of tobacco (including offal snuff)

    the lb.

    6

    6¾

    — [Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Second Schedule (Excise Liquor Licences Entitled to Relief) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported: as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, until to-morrow (Friday), pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
    Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  WAR LOANS (NUMBER OF APPLICANTS).
  WAR LOANS (NUMBER OF APPLICANTS).
  HOME OFFICE VOTES.
  HOME OFFICE VOTES.
  INCOME TAX PAYERS.
  INCOME TAX PAYERS.
  AIR RAID VICTIMS' ESTATE.
  AIR RAID VICTIMS' ESTATE.
  GOLD COIN AND SUGAR (CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS).
  GOLD COIN AND SUGAR (CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  LAND CULTIVATION (ARMY OFFICERS).
  LAND CULTIVATION (ARMY OFFICERS).
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
  COLD STORAGE (PLYMOUTH).
  COLD STORAGE (PLYMOUTH).
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  AFFORESTATION (IRELAND).
  AFFORESTATION (IRELAND).
  DISTINCTIONS FOR GALLANTRY (POSTHUMOUS AWARD).
  DISTINCTIONS FOR GALLANTRY (POSTHUMOUS AWARD).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  UNDER-AGE SOLDIER.
  UNDER-AGE SOLDIER.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
  AERONAUTICAL SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR.
  AERONAUTICAL SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR.
  RE-EXAMINATIONS.
  RE-EXAMINATIONS.
  SIGNALLER'S LETTERS (SOUTH AFRICA).
  SIGNALLER'S LETTERS (SOUTH AFRICA).
  VOLUNTARILY ENLISTED MEN (TEEM OF SERVICE).
  VOLUNTARILY ENLISTED MEN (TEEM OF SERVICE).
  PRIVATE'S EFFECTS.
  PRIVATE'S EFFECTS.
  FIELD PUNISHMENT No. 1.
  FIELD PUNISHMENT No. 1.
  MEDICAL WOMEN (FRANCE).
  MEDICAL WOMEN (FRANCE).
  IRISH GUARDS (CATERHAM).
  IRISH GUARDS (CATERHAM).
  HOME CAMPS (LEAVE).
  HOME CAMPS (LEAVE).
  BULL WALL, DOLLYMOUNT.
  BULL WALL, DOLLYMOUNT.
  LABOUR DISPUTE, QUEENSFERRY.
  LABOUR DISPUTE, QUEENSFERRY.
  SOLDIERS AT FRONT (LEAVE).
  SOLDIERS AT FRONT (LEAVE).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TRANSFERS).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TRANSFERS).
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES (IDENTIFICATION).
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES (IDENTIFICATION).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (TRANSFER TO REGULAR ARMY).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (TRANSFER TO REGULAR ARMY).
  DOLLYMOUNT CAMP, DUBLIN (LABOURERS' WAGES).
  DOLLYMOUNT CAMP, DUBLIN (LABOURERS' WAGES).
  LAMBETH BUILDING (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  LAMBETH BUILDING (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  STEEL WORKERS (WAR BONUS).
  STEEL WORKERS (WAR BONUS).
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (NEW OFFICES).
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (NEW OFFICES).
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  JUVENILE COURTS.
  JUVENILE COURTS.
  School Teachers' Residences (Ireland).
  School Teachers' Residences (Ireland).
  Worcester Education Committee (Chairman's Language).
  Worcester Education Committee (Chairman's Language).
  School Teachers' Salaries.
  School Teachers' Salaries.