Sitting of 16 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered;
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    FLOGGINGS (BURMAH).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for India if he can state the number of floggings that have taken place in Burmah in the last six months; how many of these floggings were public; the number of lashes given in each case; the instrument by which the punishment was inflicted; and the composition of the court-martial or other Court that passed these sentences?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The figures are returned annually. I have no figures later than those for last year and I see no reason to call for a special inquiry. The canings are not public and the sentences are passed by the ordinary civil Courts. There have been no court-martials in Burmah for offences other than those of a purely military nature.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION ALLOWANCE.
    Sir R. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in accordance with Indian Army Instruction No. 184, of 1919, those compulsorily detained in military service will be eligible for the Army of Occupation allowance from February, 1919; if so, whether this allowance is also to be paid to temporary
    350
    officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps compulsorily detained in India for the Afghan campaign; and, if not, could the reason be given?
    Mr. MONTAGU:The bonus increase of pay from 1st February is admissible to all officers of the British service, including temporary R.A.M.C. officers who were in India on the 5th April and had not already been detailed to proceed home on medical grounds.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PAY).
    Sir R. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for India whether officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps serving in India receive pay in pounds sterling at the new rate of exchange of 1s. 8d. to the rupee; and whether the result of this is seriously to reduce their effective pay as measured by the purchasing power of the rupee in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU:Assuming that the hon. Member refers to temporary officers, the fact is at present as stated in the former part of the question, but I am in correspondence with the Army Council on the subject.

    AFGHANISTAN.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a full statement as to the real situation in the Afghanistan fighting, bringing matters up to date?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan on Thursday, the 10th instant. Except for affairs of outposts, there is now no fighting with the Afghans, and we have every reason to hope that the Afghan Peace Delegates will present themselves at our lines on the 22nd instant.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for India if it is intended to allow the present ruler of Afghanistan to retain his throne in view of his recent unprovoked attack upon British territory?
    Mr. MONTAGU: As the House is aware, the Amir has asked for an Armistice, and it is hoped that peace negotiations will shortly be opened. Our object is to secure our frontiers against a recurrence of such unprovoked attacks; but it is not our present intention to express any opinion as to who the future ruler of Afghanistan shall be.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India when the Papers regarding Afghanistan, including the full text of the communications from the Amir and of the Viceroy's replies, will be laid before the House?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Papers will be laid as soon as possible. Having regard to the negotiations at present on foot, I cannot indicate the precise date.

    COMMISSIONS (INDIANS).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to lay down any specific number of commissions to be conferred upon Indians each year from among Indians already serving in the Army, and from among young educated Indians who under go special training and education with a view to their becoming officers at the commencement of their regimental careers, respectively, or are commissions to be granted from time to time as suitable individuals obtain recommendation?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not proposed to grant commissions every year to Indians already serving in the Army, but a limited number of commissions is being granted to Indians who have specially distinguished themselves in the War. I am not quite sure who are the "young educated Indians" to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers but if he means Indians who seek admission to the Army through Sandhurst, the number to be nominated every year is ten.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India how many commissions in the Indian Army have been granted to Indians since the announcement of August, 1917; whether all such commissions have been granted to Indians who were serving in the Indian land forces; and what principle is to be adopted in granting commissions to Indians in the future?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to permanent commissions. Nine of these have been given to Indian officers serving in the Indian land forces who have specially distinguished themselves during the War. Five Indian cadets have been admitted to Sandhurst and will receive commissions in due course if they qualify. Five more will join next term, and it is intended that there shall join ten annually. A further limited number of commissions will be
    352
    granted to Indian officers for special distinction in the present War, and to those cadets considered qualified at the Indore Military College, which closes shortly But otherwise commissions will only be given to Indians who qualify at Sandhurst in the ordinary way.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any limit of age to the cadets admitted to the Indore Military College?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think there is, but I should not like to say from memory. I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman to-morrow.

    IMPERIAL CADET CORPS (DEHRA DUN).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India why the Imperial Cadet Corps at Dehra Dun was closed; and whether it is to be reopened?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Imperial Cadet Corps was closed during the War as the course of education there was not suited to war-time conditions. I have not yet had any proposals from the Government of India as to its being reopened.

    KARACHI TROOP TRAIN INCIDENT.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for India in what particulars General Shaw failed to act up to his full responsibility in connection with the Karachi troop-train incident?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 9th instant.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has never dealt with this question at all? Did not the India Office condemn this gallant officer without waiting for the Report of any Court of Inquiry, and has not the right hon. Gentleman, equally without waiting for any fresh Report, said that the officer did not act up to his responsibilities, and as it is therefore clearly a matter of Parliamentary action and not a Court of Inquiry, ought not the right hon. Gentleman, in common fairness, to say in what respect this officer is to blame for not acting up to his responsibilities?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I really think I have done everything I can for this gallant officer. An inquiry was held, as a result of which my predecessor made a statement about him on the authority of a telegram from India. As I thought there were

    353
    irregularities about the inquiry, I offered him, more than eighteen months ago, a new inquiry. He has not accepted it. If he does not want to leave the matter where it stands now he can get it put right, or, at any rate, he can get these matters inquired into by a new Court of Inquiry. I leave that offer open for another week from now, but if after that it is not accepted, I really must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to let the matter drop.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that the information quoted in this House by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor arose out of an inquiry in which officers junior to this officer came to certain conclusions, and ought not the whole case to be reopened?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It was because I thought the inquiry was irregular, and because I thought the gallant officer had a case that I offered him a new inquiry. I cannot do anything more, because he has not accepted it.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has not the right hon. Gentleman prejudged the whole issue by saying the officer did not act up to his full responsibilites? Does not that show that it is useless, from his point of view, to have an inquiry? If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws, the inquiry stands on a different basis.
    Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me to withdraw an opinion based on one inquiry I can only offer another inquiry into the question. Unless that offer is accepted the first inquiry must stand.
    Major McMICKING: How can hon. Members satisfy themselves that the information upon which the right hon. Gentleman has based his opinion is more accurate than the information which was supplied to the Secretary of State in July, 1916, by the Government of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think the House of Commons is a suitable tribunal to inquire into a matter of this kind. If the papers are to be re-examined it must be by an ordinary military inquiry.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and publish the correspondence and details of the former inquiry in order that the House may have an opportunity of judging?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The papers are very voluminous, and I do not think they are of sufficient general public interest to publish them. They are available for the only proper tribunal to re-examine the matter—an inquiry under the Military Acts.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has not the right hon. Gentleman set himself up as a tribunal above the Court by prejudging the issue?
    Mr. MONTAGU: How can that be said when I have offered another inquiry?
    Major McMICKING: Is any case too insignificant which will serve to show that the administration of the Government of India is based upon truth and justice?

    OFFICERS MEDICALLY UNFIT,
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there are British officers in India who were passed by a medical board as long ago as March last as unfit to remain in India, and are still kept in the Plains waiting for passages to be arranged; and, considering that the health of these officers will in all probability be permanently injured, ho will state what steps are being taken to compensate them in the event of their being unable to follow their profession on their return to England?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have no reason to think that the return to this country of officers who are passed as medically unfit to remain in India is being delayed; but I will have inquiry made.

    REFORMS (VIEWS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India who are the several gentlemen at present in this country who are well qualified to explain the views of the local Governments in India should the Select Committee desire to hear the views of the various Provincial Governors?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have placed before the Committee the names of all gentlemen, official and unofficial, at present in this country, whose recent duties or experience seems to qualify them to give evidence. It is for the Committee to decide whom they will hear.

    DEPUTATIONS (PRIORITY CERTIFICATES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India to how many members of the various deputations from the

    355
    National Congress, the Indian Moslem League, the Home Rule for India League, the Servants of India, and similar associations have A 2 and other priority certificates for passages from India to England been given by the Controller of Passages under the Government of India, and how many of these are believed to have arrived in England; and if he has any information as to any more coming?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is "I do not know," and to the second, "No."

  MERCANTILE MARINE (MEDAL RIBBON).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make a definite announcement as to the wearing of the medal ribbon for the Mercantile Marine in time for the Peace celebrations on 19th July?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE(Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to answer this question. I am afraid it will not be possible to make an announcement as to the wearing of the Mercantile Marine war medal ribbon in time for the Peace celebrations on Saturday next.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction and impatience amongst the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine at the long delay in comparison with the Mons Medal, seeing that they were earned at the same date?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    FLEET REVIEW.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in connection with the Peace celebrations or otherwise, there will be a review of the Fleet or a naval display at Spit head this summer; and, if so, on what date?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): It is regretted that it will not be possible to hold a Naval Review at Spit head this summer.

    PEACE CELEBRATION PROCESSIONS (SEATS FOR OFFICERS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any seats are reserved for naval officers and their wives and any for naval ratings and their wives to view the Peace celebration processions on 19th July?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I regret that it has not been practicable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not this been done in the past for naval officers and their wives and families?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say without looking into the matter.

    COAL CONSUMPTION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked what is the present monthly consumption of coal for the Royal Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It has not been possible within the time since my hon. and gallant Friend's question appeared on the Paper to furnish the information for which he asks; neither has publication of such a Return been made in the past. But I can assure him—if I rightly interpret the reason for the question—that the question of economising coal consumption in view of the present supply is constantly before the Board, and frequent instructions have recently been issued upon the point.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can I have an answer if I put the question down in a week's time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will see.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty to increase the working hours of the men in the Navy as an offset against the additions to pay recently granted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly not!

    CHIEF ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS (GRATUITIES).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why the pensioned chief engine-room artificers serving in the torpedo store, Portsmouth, and who were

    357
    under fifty-five years of age on the 4th August, 1914, are not to receive the war gratuity given to other naval ratings; and why these ratings in question are not to count the time served until the signing of the Peace Treaty for increase to their pensions, seeing that these men answered the call to the pennant when the Royal Proclamation was issued, but were ordered back to their civilian employment and were told that the torpedo store was their war station, and that some of these men were sent away to war (naval) bases during the War and were not in receipt of the emoluments which other active service ratings were receiving?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men referred to are civilian employés of the dockyard who continued on their peace employment during the War. They are therefore not eligible for the Naval war gratuity. They are also debarred from the grant of any increase of pension in respect of their civilian employment by the Regulations, which expressly prohibit the counting of civil time towards naval pension. If, however, any of these men had periods of mobilised service prior to being returned to their civilian employment, these periods count for increase of pension, and when added to former service may entitle the men, in some cases, to increased rates of pension. Although my hon. Friend does not raise the point, he will no doubt remember that under the decision of the Government on Recommendation 51 of the Jerram Committee, those long-service pensioners under fifty-five who, after mobilisation, were retained in their civilian employment under the Government, will receive the revised scales of pension now payable.

  H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES.

    VISIT TO CANADA.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is in a position to give any details with regard to the naval arrangements in connection with the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada?
    Mr. LONG: His Royal Highness will embark in His Majesty's ship "Renown" at Portsmouth on Tuesday, 5th August, and will visit, St. John's, Newfoundland, and thence proceed in a light cruiser to St. John, New Brunswick, Halifax, and
    358
    Charlottetown, re-embarking at the latter port in His Majesty's ship "Renown" and proceeding in that ship to Quebec.

  CHILWELL FACTORY (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  Mr. WATERSONasked the Minister of Labour whether inquiries have been completed into the case of H. Burrage, late sergeant in the Sherwood Foresters, who applied for reinstatement at Chilwell factory, and who was informed that only soldiers in uniform, drawing His Majesty's pay and under Army discipline, would in future be employed at that place, and if he will say when such a decision was arrived at, by whom, and for what reasons; is he aware that since the first time this question was tabled men have been taken to task for stating the above facts; and will he take steps to see that no victimisation is the result?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have made inquiries into this matter, and find that it is not the fact that only soldiers in uniform are being taken on at the Chilwell Army Ordnance Depot, though I understand that an unfounded rumour to this effect was casually mentioned to Mr. Burrage by a clerk at a neighbouring Employment Exchange. My information is that ex-Service men are not only being taken on at the depot in question, but are given the preference over other applicants. I am drawing the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the points raised in the latter part of the question.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked whether prisoners of war are employed on the construction of a railway line at Frimley, Surrey; and, if so, what is the scale of wages paid?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have made inquiries locally in the matter, and am informed that, although there are prisoners in camp in the district, they are not employed on work of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, but are merely engaged on general camp clearing work, pending their withdrawal.
  Mr. SHORTasked on what terms 628 German prisoners are employed by the Buxton lime firms?
  Mr. WARDLE: I understand that the prisoners of war were employed at the Buxton lime quarries at the urgent request of both employers and employed in the industry. Their employment was necessitated by the serious shortage in the production of limestone. It has now been found possible to make other arrangements, and the employment of these men will be discontinued as from the 18th July.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the indignation existing among discharged soldiers and sailors who are unemployed in consequence of the retention of large numbers of German prisoners in factories and other industrial establishments; and if he will state what action the Government proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am not aware of any case in which German prisoners are employed in factories or industrial establishments. If my hon. Friend will supply me with specific instances I will have immediate inquiries made.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (FEMALE EMPLOYES).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Labour when he will be circulating a statement showing the number of women and girls employed on the staff of each Government Department on the 11th November, 1918, and 30th June, 1919, respectively?
  Mr. BALDWIN(Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): A White Paper is being issued showing the staffs employed in Government Departments on 1st August, 1914, 11th November, 1918, and 31st March, 1919. The White Paper shows permanent and temporary employés separately, but not the sexes. I am having prepared, and will forward to the hon. Member in a few days, a supplementary statement covering the main Departments, showing the number of each sex employed on 11th November, 1918. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as figures showing the staffs on 1st July are available.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Will the information be open to all Members?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT).
  Sir HENRY HARRISasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of ex-officers have been for some time training at commercial colleges in London for the certificates of the London Chamber of Commerce, with the guarantee from such colleges of being found employment, and that such ex-officers, some of whom sent in applications for grants towards their training several months back, have now been informed that no grants can be made for maintenance or fees in respect of such training; and whether he will take steps to remedy the serious hardship thus caused to these ex-officers and will receive a deputation from them and the principals of the colleges concerned?
  Mr. WARDLE: The Government's professional training scheme for ex-officers and men in the ranks, of suitable educational promise, is intended to restore the supply of men of higher general, scientific, professional, and business attainments. It was not intended to fix ex-Service men for clerical occupations of any kind, nor was it intended or stated that ex-officers, as such, had any right to benefit by the scheme unless the training which they wished to take up would fulfil the objects set forth. But there is another scheme of training administered by the Training Department of this Ministry. Under this scheme, in so far as the ex-officers to whom the hon. Member refers may be unfitted by disability from resuming their pre-war employment, or, owing to their youth, may not have been in employment before the War, their cases will be considered, and if there is a good prospect of suitable employment resulting from the training which they have undertaken, the ex-officers will be eligible for State assistance at the appropriate rates.
  Mr. SUGDENasked the Minister of Labour why, when patriotic Lancashire firms offer to train and pay uneconomic wages to disabled soldiers whilst such training is proceeding, members of his staff report unfavourably upon such scheme?
  Mr. WARDLE: I regret that I am unable to detect what case or cases are referred to in the question. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will communicate with me on the subject.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I shall be glad to do so.
  Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Labour (1) the nature of the negotiations which have taken place with the heads of trades unions with the object of facilitating the employment of disabled sailors and soldiers in those industries in which such men may with advantage be placed; and, if an agreement with the trades unions has been completed, whether the substance of such agreement may be communicated to the House; (2) whether he has given his consideration to a national scheme for the employment of disabled sailors and soldiers prepared by Mr. Henry L. Rothband, Albion Works, Pendleton, Manchester; whether the main principles embodied in Mr. Rothband's scheme commend themselves to the Government; and whether steps will be taken by the Government to give effect to Mr. Rothband's scheme, either in its present form or with such modifications as may make it more acceptable to employers and trade unionists throughout the country?
  Mr. WARDLE:My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour hopes shortly to be in a position to announce to the House of Commons the details of a scheme for the employment of disabled ex-Service men, and to make a statement on the result of his negotiations with the National Advisory Committees of the various trades and with certain industrial councils in the matter. In framing the scheme regard has been had to the proposals put forward by Mr. Rothband.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Have the Government taken Mr. Rothband into consultation?
  Mr. WARDLE: I cannot answer that without notice.

  CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT (CANCELLED GRANT).
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a civilian who volunteered in 1917, and obtained a grant from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities Department) to be paid to his wife in order to
  362
  meet expenditure for which he was liable, had his grant withdrawn and payment of the needed money withheld from his wife whilst he was with the Army in France and unable to make other arrangements; whether the reason for the action of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities Department) in stopping the agreed payment during the husband's absence was owing to the wife having rented two rooms in her house on certain occasions and not given full information to the Department; whether consideration has been given to the fact that the wife rented rooms at inconvenience and privation to herself, solely because, owing to the increased cost of living, she found herself unable to make both ends meet to properly support herself and children and to pay the liabilities during her husband's absence; and whether, under the circumstances, he will instruct the Department to pay up the arrears of the grant and to continue paying it until the soldier returns to civilian life?
  Mr. WARDLE: I understand that the hon. Member refers to the case of a Mrs. Wilson. The facts are that the grant made in this case was first reduced and then cancelled because of the failure of Mrs. Wilson to disclose the true facts as to the rent she was receiving for letting her rooms. As regards the past, I do not see my way to going back upon the cancellation of the original grant, but I am willing to have the case reconsidered to see whether, on compassionate grounds, the payment of the grant or any part of it can be resumed.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is the irregularity of a wife in carrying out the rules and regulations of the Department a justification for preventing a volunteer obtaining the amount promised to him by the Civil Liabilities Department?
  Mr. WARDLE: I will look into that.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    CONTRACT MEN.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Labour if members of His Majesty's Forces who were certified by the Ministry of Labour as contract men prior to 1st February, 1919, are eligible for demoblisation under the new Army Council Instructions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley on the 9th instant, in which it was pointed out that slip men are not affected by the recent Army Order unless they are eligible for demobilisation under Army Order 55—i.e., on the ground of length of service, age, or wound stripes, etc.

    COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.
    Mr. G. MURRAY.asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the further definition of extreme compassionate grounds in connection with release from the Army laid down in Army Council Instruction No. 421, of 1919, issued on the 4th July, does not go far enough, and that there are still a large number of cases of an extreme compassionate nature which cannot be dealt with under the present instructions; and whether, in view of the above, he will take into consideration the further extension of the principles upon which these Regulations are based, so as to provide, at any rate, that release should be granted in cases where there are two parents both aged or infirm and dependent on the son, and also in the case of a widower father who, through age or infirmity, is unable to support himself?
    Mr. FORSTER: As he has already stated, my right hon. Friend hopes to issue this week the Memorandum he promised, setting forth the further steps which will be taken consequent on the ratification of Peace to reduce our armed forces and to release men in the order best calculated to mitigate hardship. We desire to release as many men as possible, but my right hon. Friend does not wish to anticipate the statement by partial answers.
    Mr. MURRAY: In view of the unsatisfactory results that have been obtained in connection with these compassionate releases, will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of setting up a small Committee at the War Office to deal with all these compassionate cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: My experience is that a Committee would lead to delay. What my right hon. Friend is anxious to do is to avoid delay.
    Mr. MURRAY: If a Committee is set up we may get some results.
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until he sees the Memorandum which my right hon. Friend hopes to issue this week. It is not very much to ask him to do. I hope then that all his doubts will be set at rest.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentlemen take care to see that the claims of the men in the East are not overlooked?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope that their case: will be fully considered.

    POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
    Major W. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether Post Office Civil servants who joined the Colours during the War have, on demobilisation, been docked of a part of their war gratuities on the ground that during their period of service part of the Civil pay formerly payable to these men had been paid to their dependants; and whether the dependants of such men were in receipt of separation or dependant's allowance during the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. There is no difference between these men and other soldiers in regard to the issue of separation or dependant's allowance.
    Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that all enlistments from the Post Office consisted of Derby men; whether many of these men were not released because of the importance of their work until after Conscription was in force; and whether his pledge to the Derby men means that every Derby man will be released before any conscripts?
    Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that practically all the members of the Post Office staff attested under the Derby scheme; whether he is aware that many of them could not be released by the Post Office until after the Military Service Acts were in operation; and whether it can be understood that his pledge to release the Derby men is applicable to all attested men no matter on what date they were called up?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I do not recollect giving any pledge regarding Derby men, but on 29th May I stated that I hoped, as

    365
    soon as conditions permit, to begin to release these men in order according to the month in which they joined up. The majority of Post Office employés who were applied for by the Postmaster-General as pivotal or for special release have been released irrespective of the date on which they joined the Colours for continuous service, and the remainder are being released in accordance with the instructions recently issued providing for the early release of men eligible for demobilisation.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention of sending any of these Derby men to India?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope to issue tomorrow morning the Memorandum which I promised a fortnight ago. In that it is laid down that no Derby man, no conscript soldier, shall proceed East of Suez, to a distant theatre, and that no Derby man shall go further than the Rhine.

    TROOPS IN EGYPT AND INDIA.
    Mr. L. LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War if all 1914 and 1915 enlisted men have been by this time repatriated front Egypt; if not, how many are still left; and which classes of soldiers now serving there he proposes next to take in hand for similar treatment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: According to the programme now being followed by the forces in Egypt, all men who joined the Colours in 1914 are due to embark for demobilisation by the end of this month. Those who joined the Colours in 1915 are to embark by the end of August. In addition, all men over thirty-seven are to embark by the end of August, and other men who are eligible for demobilisation under current instructions are to embark by the end of September.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 1914 men are being sent to India for compulsory service, and on arrival are receiving letters thanking them for having volunteered? Will he see that these men are returned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I have given instructions that no conscript soldiers are to be sent to India.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman `make a statement showing that all 1914 men who have been sent to India are allowed to return forthwith?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; they will not return until they are relieved. The release is being carried out on that basis.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether the situation in India is now such as to justify the continuance of the demobilisation which was arrested last April; and whether troops can in any case be dispatched to that country in order to release men who are over due for release and whom employment awaits in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A number of battalions are already on their way to India, and the remainder of the reliefs will follow in the very near future. Upon their arrival the demobilisation of those eligible in India will commence.

    RELEASE APPLICATIONS.
    Mr. A. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether Sapper F. Charrett, No. 191476, L Signal Battalion, A.P.O. 2, Rouen, attested under the Derby scheme in 1915, but was not released by the Post Office until July, 1916; whether he has served abroad continuously since December, 1916, in Egypt, Palestine, Belgium, and France; whether, in February and March last, he was put on the cadre of his division as a releasable man and was kept for the time being until the cadre went home; whether, in May, it was decided to reduce all cadres by 75 per cent. in order that this percentage could be released immediately; whether Sapper Charrett was included in that number and was sent to the 5th Army Signals at Lille for demobilisation; whether, on the 28th June, Sapper Charrett was ordered to proceed to Rouen signals; whether, on reporting at Rouen, the men were informed that age does not count in the case of Post Office telegraphists, and that they were to be retained; whether he is aware that Sapper Charrett submitted an application for release on compassionate grounds as he is the only son in a position to maintain his aged parents, and his mother, who is over sixty-seven years of age, is in a critical condition; whether, at an early date, his officer informed him that it was unnecessary to appeal on compassionate grounds as he would be demobilised shortly; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the grounds on which these men were informed that the regulations as to demobilisation did not apply in their case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries will be made in this case, and my hon. Friend informed of the result as early as possible.
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Alan Fisher, No.10522, A Company, 1st Royal Scots, at present stationed at Red-ford Barracks, Edinburgh, whose home address is at 54, West Richmond Street, Edinburgh; whether he is aware that this soldier, who has been on active service for some years, applied for release on compassionate grounds; that his mother, a widow, is dying of cancer; that a brother who would have been of great assistance to the home at present was killed during the last days of the War; that the only other brother at home is deaf and dumb and notable to maintain himself; and that while in Russia Private Fisher, in desperation and as the only means of getting home to see his mother, who was then believed to be on her death bed, signed a form agreeing to serve for a further period with the Army; whether he is now on the point of being sent to India, in spite of urgent representations to the military authorities on his behalf; and whether, in view of the foregoing facts, he is prepared to cancel the order that this lad should proceed to India and also the fresh enlistment form he has signed, and grant him immediate demobilisation on extreme compassionate grounds?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Attention has already been drawn to this case, and instructions are about to be issued for Private Alan Fisher to be retained on home service for the present. As Private Fisher voluntarily re-enlisted for service in the Regular Army, I regret that his release cannot be sanctioned.

  RUSSIA.

    BREST-LITOVSK TREATY (INDEMNITY).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been done with the 320 millions of roubles paid in gold by the Bolsheviks to Germany under the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and which gold was subsequently deposited in the Bank of France for account of the Allies; and whether, now that General Koltchak has been recognised by the Allies, a certain amount of this money
    368
    will be placed at the disposal of Generals Koltchak and Denikin to enable them to purchase necessary supplies?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I regret that I have not the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member, and am not, therefore, in a position to say whether the suggestion made in the second part of his question is practicable.

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
    Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Nabokoff is still in receipt of funds supplied by the British Treasury; if so, what amount has been paid to him during the present year; on what date was the last payment made; whether it has been decided or agreed that the various payments made to Mr. Nabokoff are to be repaid by any of the existing Russian Governments; and whether, in view of the financial resources of Admiral Koltchak, General Denikin, and their friends in London and Paris, demands have been or will be made for the repayment of all sums not yet repaid in this connection?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second and third parts, the payments made during the present year to M. Nabokoff for the upkeep of the Russian Diplomatic, Consular, and other services for dealing with Russian subjects have amounted to £9,338 19s. 2d.; these payments have been discontinued since 31st March. The answer to the last part of the hon. Member's question is that advances made hitherto are in the nature of a debt to be repaid by a future Government of Russia.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great body of opinion in this country is only too glad to give this help to our Allies, and is sorry that the payment has been stopped?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is not this amount absolutely negligible in comparison with the sum that has been saved to this country by Russian military action?

    NORTH RUSSIA (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister how soon he will appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the allega-

    369
    tions concerning the administration in connection with the Expeditionary Forces sent to North Russia, and in particular with regard to the supplies of whisky which were sent out; and whether the Committee of Inquiry will hear evidence from the men themselves and not merely from the officers in charge of the expedition?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. 1 am not aware of the allegations suggested in the question, but if the hon. Member will furnish more specific information I shall be happy to have the matter inquired into.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War what is being done in regard to English soldiers who are taken prisoners by the Bolshevist forces in Russia; whether there is any means of communicating with them or getting information from them; and what treatment are they receiving?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the hon. Member's question is that negotiations are still in progress, as a result of which it is hoped to secure the release of all British prisoners of war still in the hands of the Soviet Government. It is unfortunately no longer possible to communicate with them or to receive information from them. I have no information about the treatment they are at present receiving.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask how many there are, and whether the Foreign Office is taking prompt steps to secure their release?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give the exact number, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every possible step necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: If it is impossible to get into communication with people in Russia, can we rely on information supplied through the newspapers as to what is going on in Russia?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Why not let the Russian people mind their own business?
    Mr. RAPER: Will the hon. Gentleman allow the Bolsheviks to communicate with their prisoners whom we hold?

    BRITISH TROOPS.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary for War whether any further troops are now to be sent to Russia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as Expeditionary Forces are concerned the answer is in the negative. As the House is aware, we have military missions in certain parts of Russia, and it may be necessary in pursuance of the policy of the Allied and Associated Powers, to add to or strengthen these missions. Any further personnel dispatched will, however, consist of individuals rather than units, and they will be recruited entirely on a voluntary basis.
    Lieut.Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether this policy is not using up available volunteers to relieve these 1914 men in Egypt and India, or a portion of the available volunteers who have a natural bent for military life?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, it is not so. The men who have been sent to Russia, in the great majority of cases, are men who volunteered specially for Russia, in addition to those who volunteered for the Regular Army.
    Mr. DEVLIN: For what purpose are they kept in Russia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They volunteered to go to Russia in order to carry out the policy of the five Great Powers in Paris in supporting Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin.

  MALTA (RIOT CASUALTIES).
  Mr. SWANasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the number of casualties among the Maltese and the British in the riots which have lately occurred in Malta; whether he has any information showing that the riot was provoked by the action of some British officers; and whether His Majesty's Government will see fit to institute an immediate inquiry into the causes of the trouble?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: This question should have been addressed to the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies, but as he is away I have been asked to take it for him. Three Maltese were killed and eight wounded; no casualties have been reported among the troops, but several were severely handled. The allegation that the riot was provoked by any officers

  371
  is entirely without foundation. An inquiry into the riot is proceeding in Malta, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies is awaiting the Governor's Report.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    OFFICERS' GRATUITY.
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that an officer in the temporary forces is prevented from obtaining substantive rank gratuity because the Army Order dealing with that matter, through evidently an oversight, makes no mention of temporary but only of acting rank; and whether he will reconsider this matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend is, I think, under some misapprehension. No difference is made in these respects between the officers in the temporary forces and those in the permanent Regular Army.

    ROYAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPHISTS.
    Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large number of Royal Engineer telegraphists have been paid the war gratuity on discharge on the ground that they had not been in receipt of full civil emoluments during their term of services with the forces; whether the continued refusal of the Treasury to pay the war gratuity which all of these men expected to receive on discharge has led to inequalities and anomalies; and whether, in the interests of good administration and to avoid unnecessary unrest and dissatisfaction, he will urge upon the Government the claim of all demobilised Royal Engineers to receive the war gratuity?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply to this question. I can add nothing to my answer to the hon. Member for Burnley on the 10th April last and to my many replies to similar questions since that date.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the service of these men during the War has been very good, and that the differentiation is very unfair?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, I am quite aware that their service has been very good indeed, but I cannot admit that there is any undue differentiation against them, and I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to remember that these men, alone of all the men in the Army, has received full civil rates of pay as well as their military rates of pay during their military service.

  CENSORSHIP (ABOLITION).
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for War if he can now make any announcement as to the raising of the prohibition by his Department on the use of private codes for cabling purposes?
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the Council of Five have decided that the censorship should be abolished; and what steps the Government propose to take to carry out this decision?
  Mr. FORSTER: The Government have decided that the censorship should be abolished, and this will take effect from midnight, 23rd–24th July.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does that include the cable censorship?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Why is this difference made? If it is no longer necessary, why should it not be discontinued at once?
  Mr. FORSTER: Obviously, it is necessary to make arrangements.
  Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Poet-master-General whether he is aware of the delay to cable messages, especially to and from the East, which is causing losses to firms engaged in foreign trade and making business in many cases practically impossible; whether, in these circumstances, he will cause immediate steps to be taken to permit the use of private and all public codes; whether he will arrange for the discontinuance of the present system under which the cable companies charge treble rates for cables sent through on one day; and whether he will arrange that all cables not charged at deferred rates should be considered as urgent?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): As regards the delay to cable messages, I would refer

  373
  the hon. Member to the answer on the subject which I gave to the hon. Members for West Salford and Chester on the 7th instant.
  His Majesty's Government have decided that the censorship of telegrams shall be discontinued as from midnight on the 23rd instant, and I understand that private and public codes will then be permitted.
  Urgent telegrams at triple rates are not accepted in this country, except in the case of those for Russia. They are, however, admitted in other European countries, but, in view of the present congestion upon the cables of the Eastern Telegraph Company, arrangements were recently made to suspend the urgent service in the case of outward telegrams forwarded by that route in order to secure that such telegrams to the Far East should not obtain preference in transmission over telegrams from this country.
  Mr. MURRAY: Will he make an inquiry also as to whether the delay is not attributable to some extent to the mutilation of messages in transit?
  Lord R. CECIL: Does the abolition of the censorship include the postal censorship?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: This arrangement was only come to by the Cabinet this morning, and therefore I have no knowledge of anything further than the answer I have just given.

  IRELAND.

    FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for a referendum in Ireland with a vow to obtaining the opinion of the Irish nation on the alternative forms of government, namely, Dominion Home Rule, constitution as a federal unit of the British Isles, or government by Army of Occupation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Government is not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are we to assume that government by Army of Occupation is to be continued?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; but I do not think that this form of referendum would fill the whole bill. I think that we would be asked also to submit the question whether Ireland is to be a republic.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we right in understanding that Ireland is governed by an Army of Occupation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. Friend understood that he would be wrong.
    Mr. ARCHDALE: Is not the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman a bad advertisement for Pelmanism, of which he is such a shining light?
    Mr. DEVLIN: In conformity with the declared principle for which this country in common with the other countries went to war, namely, on the question of the right of all countries to determine their own destinies, is Ireland, in the spirit of that declaration on which you based your war policy, to be allowed the right to determine her own war policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a little difference of opinion as to the interpretation of self-determination.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I have mine. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite ready, but I think that it would require more time than is available in answering questions.
    Mr. DEVLIN:Will the right hon. Gentleman allow us a day on which to discuss the question of the definition of self-determination, and, considering that this country went to war to establish the principle of self-determination, is that principle not to be applied only in the case of Ireland, which is controlled by this House and this Government?
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is that principle also to apply to Ulster?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that on these two questions I cannot add anything to what I have said.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Did not the Chief Secretary a. short time ago, in replying to a question, declare that Ireland was governed by an Army of Occupation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that he put the statement in that form.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the reply of the Chief Secretary, when he said distinctly that Ireland was governed by an Army of Occupation—which was about one of the most truthful statements that ever came from those benches?

    UNITED STATES SENATE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he regards the action taken by the United States Senate and other persons or bodies representing the American people, in respect to Ireland, as a violation of Article 10 of Part I. (the League of Nations' Covenant), included in the Treaty of Peace, signed at Versailles on 28th July, 1919; if so, what action is it proposed to take, or, if not, and in view of the unsettled policy in regard to Ireland, will he put the future government of Ireland on the agenda for consideration at the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What is the League of "Nations formed for?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is being formed in the hope of preventing war.
    Mr. DEVLIN: And is not the best way to prevent war to withdraw Armies of Occupation from countries that are civilised, as Ireland is?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the only good method. Another good method would be to withdraw the necessity of having Armies of Occupation.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the necessity by giving the people the right to control their own affairs?

    SIR EDWARD CARSON'S 12TH JULY SPEECH.
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir Edward Carson) on the 12th July; whether he has taken, or will take, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the statements contained therein are calculated to spread disaffection among His Majesty's subjects or would otherwise justify a prosecution; and whether, seeing that other persons have been prosecuted for less inflammatory speeches, he proposes to take action in the matter?
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the right
    376
    hon. Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast, that, if any attempt is made to take away from Ulster men their rights as British citizens, he will call out the Ulster Volunteers, and that if any attempt is made to revive the Home Rule Act or put it into force he will summon the Provisional Government; and what action he proposes to take to show equality before the law for all who advise men to defy it, and threaten violence if the law is carried out?
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast at Ballymenoch on the 12th instant, in which he announced his intention of calling out the Ulster Volunteers, and of summoning the Provisional Government if His Majesty's Government attempt to put into force the Government of Ireland Act; whether this declaration is an incitement to direct action against constitutional authority; and whether, in view of the fact that a member of the Government took part in the demonstration at which this speech was made, the Government approve of such action?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:As suggested in one of these questions, I have consulted the Law Officers, and I am advised that there is no ground upon which His Majesty's Government could take action with regard to the speech referred to.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Have any of these Law Officers whom you have consulted made seditious speeches themselves upon the same question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that my hon. Friend's definition of sedition would be different from mine. In any case we must assume that the Law Officers when asked to give a legal opinion give a legal opinion.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that there are in prison in England men who have been sent to prison for inciting workmen to take direct action by the withdrawal of their individual labour, and is not an incitement to direct action by force of arms much more serious?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer shows that this is a legal question, and I do not profess to be a judge of law, but even from the paint of view of common sense there is a difference between hypothetical action and action which has been taken.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is treason to be justified because the Law Officers of the Crown think it legal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Would the hon. Gentleman like to be hanged if the Law Officers thought that he should not be?
    Mr. DEVLIN: I am quite sure that I should be hanged if the Law Officers had their way. Is it a fact that at the present time there are three Socialist orators in Belfast Prison for having made speeches inciting the Belfast workers to direct action in connection with industrial disputes; whether these men, comparatively humble, almost defenceless, are to go to gaol for six months; whether some of them are being forcibly fed; and whether men in high places in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I do not care whether it is a speech or not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: But I care. The hon. Member is not entitled to make speeches. He can put his question without all the embroidery.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes. If you call me to order for making a speech I shall obey, but you did not call me to order. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Really does he not think that it is bringing the law of the country into contempt? [Interruption.] This is about the last place in which an Irishman will be allowed to speak about the affairs of his own country. You may very soon "have no one here to speak," but while I am here I will speak.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is all flummery. Put the question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I will put the question, and press the question. If I am put down here, as my countrymen are in Ireland, I will put up with the consequences.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is unnecessary for the hon. Member to lecture me or the House. Will he immediately put the question?
    Mr. DEVLIN: I was repeatedly interrupted, and you have not risen to call mo to order. The question I have to put is this, and I want an answer to it—whether three humble men, imprisoned for making Socialistic speeches on the Custom House steps at Belfast, have been sentenced to six months' imprisonment and forcibly fed for suggesting direct action to the workers, while statesmen in this House—
    378
    ex-Law Officers and ex-Ministers of the Crown—can make far worse speeches without a word of condemnation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member's analogy is not at all correct.
    Mr. DEVLIN: One is rich and the others are poor.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the workmen to whom he refers had told their fellow workmen that in a certain number of years they would be starving, and that they would be justified in taking direct action, that would be an analogy.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bolsheviks in this country and the other extreme industrialists will be satisfied with an answer of that character?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Member will make them understand it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I will make them understand a few things before this controversy is ended.
    Mr. CLYNES: As one of the questions asked is in my name, I beg to give notice that, in view of the terms of the reply, I shall at the end of Question Time ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It should have been done on Monday. The thing must be urgent, and steps should have been taken at once.
    At end of Questions,
    Mr. CLYNES: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the lack of any declared intention on the part of the Government to set the law in motion against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast, in respect of speeches made by him near Belfast on 12th July, inciting to violence and breaches of the law, and calculated to endanger the safety of the Realm." In view of your statement during Questions, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. Members with whom I act on this side of the House considered it was better to raise this subject by placing the question in the ordinary way on the Paper, so as to give the Government the opportunity of consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, and making some considered reply, and, in view of the reply given, I ask leave to move the Adjournment.
    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 this evening.

    SINN FEIN LOAN.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the organisers of the Sinn Fein movement propose to raise a loan of one million sterling, half of which will be asked for in this country and in the Dominions; and whether subjects of His Majesty contributing to this loan would be guilty of treason?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): The answer to the question is in the negative. The organisers of the Sinn Fein movement have not been proclaimed the King's enemies, and I think that such a proclamation would be necessary before persons, if any, aiding them by loans could be held guilty of treason for so doing.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask the learned. Attorney-General whether, according to the actions and the speeches that have been made by Sinn Feiners, he does not think it is necessary at all events that some proclamation should be made, and does he know for what purpose this loan is being raised?
    Sir G. HEWART: I do not profess to have read all the speeches to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, nor am I prepared on the spur of the moment to answer his other question.
    Sir F. HALL: Surely he has read many of the speeches to which I refer, and is it the intention of the Government to take any steps, or is it not?
    Sir G. HEWART: I must have notice of that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: If he wants to read speeches, will he accept a copy from me of "The Handbook on Anarchy," recently published, where he will find many speeches of his colleagues and friends?
    Sir G. HEWART: I shall be most happy to accept, without reference to the question of whether I shall read them!

  CABINET (RECONSTITUTION).
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make a statement with regard to the. reconstitution of the British Cabinet?
  Lieut.-Colonel HERBERTasked when it is proposed to put the War Cabinet on a peace basis?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated it is the intention of the Government to deal with this subject as soon as possible, but I cannot at present make any statement.

  MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS.
  Mr. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have entered into any agreement or under standing with the United States of America regarding the respective military establishments of the two countries; whether his attention has been drawn to a statement that an agreement has been entered into that each country shall maintain a military establishment four times greater than existed prior to the War; whether this statement is correct; and whether the agreement will be published in full?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.

  PEACE TREATY (CORRESPONDENCE).
  Mr. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached to publish in Blue Book form the complete correspondence with the German Government regarding the terms of Peace from the signing of the Armistice to the signing of the treaty, including the German reply to terms offered in the original treaty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is intended to lay all the relevant Papers as soon as possible.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Shall we have it in time for the Debate on the Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be a very large volume, or several large volumes. They have not only to be printed, but they have to be translated. I am afraid that it will not be ready for some time.

  FOODSTUFFS (SPECULATIVE PURCHASES).
  Lieut.-Colonel WHITEasked the Prime Minister if any cases have been brought to his notice of speculative purchases of foodstuffs in bulk by persons who are not bond fide occupied in the production or distribution of such foodstuffs; and, if so, if he will introduce legislation making it a punishable offence for any inhabitant of the United Kingdom, not being a bond fide or necessary middleman, such as, for example, a wholesale salesman, to deal speculatively in bulk in food and similar essential commodities?
  Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Some instances of speculative purchases of oil seeds were recently brought to the notice of the Food Controller, and action has already been taken in the matter on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. Dealings in these commodities are now restricted to legitimate traders who have been licensed for the purpose, and it is a punishable offence for any unlicensed person to buy, sell, or otherwise deal in them. The question of the extension of this principle to other commodities will, presumably, be considered by the Select Committee to which the Leader of the House referred on the 14th instant.

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

    SALE OF BEER (RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. W. R SMITHasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the feeling?that exists in the country, the restrictions governing the sale of beer, etc., will be removed or modified on Saturday next?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a supplementary question on 1st July, arising out of a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Victoria Division of Belfast.

    ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW.
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the number of men employed in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, who fought in the War he will arrange for the closing of the gardens on the 19th July in order that these men may take part in the Peace
    382
    celebrations; and, if this not possible, whether he will grant the men who are compelled to work double pay for the day instead of a day's holiday later on?
    Sir ARTHUR BOSCAWEN: As 19th July has been ordered to be observed as a Bank Holiday it is likely that, as on other Bank Holidays, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, will be visited by large numbers of people who wish to spend the holiday in a quiet fashion Having regard to the public interest the Board do not, therefore, propose to close the gardens on that day. No man, however, will be retained on duty who can possibly be spared.
    The instructions issued for the observance of 19th July as a Bank Holiday throughout the public service prescribe that "any officer who, owing to the exigencies of the public service is required to attend for duty on that day, may be allowed a day's leave in lieu." The Board have no power to vary this ruling by awarding double pay for the day in place of a day's leave in lieu.

    VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
    Sir H. HARRISasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the war services of members of Voluntary Aid Detachments, space will be reserved for some of them to view the Peace procession?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): In view of the many demands upon the limited accommodation available, I regret that it is not possible to reserve a space for members of the Voluntary Aid Detachments to view the Peace procession, but I would remind the hon. Member that the detachments will be represented in the procession itself.

    MARSHAL FOCH.
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, as indicated in the Press this morning, it is expected that Marshal Foch will be present in London on Saturday in connection with the Peace celebrations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very glad to say that we have received an intimation that there is a probability of Marshal Foch accepting the very cordial invitation which was given to him to come.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has Marshal Joffre been invited as well?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We leave it to the French to send their own representatives, but Marshal Foch was commander not only of the Frenck Armies but also of ours, and, therefore, we sent him the invitation.

  SOLDIERS' DEATHS, BELTON PARK.
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received the proceedings of the court of inquiry into the death from exposure of a number of soldiers at Belton Park, Grantham; and, if so, whether such proceedings will be made available to Members?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The proceedings have been received, but it is contrary to established practice to make such documents public, and I am not prepared to make any exception in this case. I may add that the results of the inquiry have been carefully considered, and that suitable disciplinary action is being taken.

  VOLUNTEERS (PURCHASE OF BOOTS).
  Mr. ATKEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that the Volunteers have had to provide their own boots for military purposes, they are now likely to purchase second hand Army boots at 25s. per pair, when, as reported in the "Times" of the 4th July, at a sale of Army boots in Mincing Lane the bidding averaged 5s. a pair; and whether, in view of the service rendered by the Volunteers, he will consider the possibility of giving them these boots along with their uniform?
  Mr. FORSTER: There is no comparison between the condition of the salvaged boots disposed of as surplus and the boots offered for sale to the Volunteers, the latter being practically new.
  Mr. ATKEY: Can an undertaking be given that when these boots become surplus to Army requirements they will be offered to the Volunteers before they are disposed of by public auction?
  Mr. FORSTER: The price is a fair price.
  Mr. ATKEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what they cost?
  Mr. FORSTER: I cannot without notice.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what profit is being made upon each pair of boots?
  Mr. FORSTER: I cannot without notice. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject.

  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
  Mr. A. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether the women telegraphists who joined up in the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps, and who served overseas, are being refused war gratuity on demobilisation; whether the women who are being retained with the forces are being refused any payment in compensation of their retention with the Army of Occupation; and whether, having regard to the greatly increased cost of all articles of clothing which have to be purchased on demobilisation, and in view of the necessity for approximately equal treatment, he will reconsider the question so far as the Army Auxiliary Corps are concerned?
  Mr. FORSTER: These women receive twenty-eight days pay on demobilisation on the same lines as other members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps. The question of their rate of pay is under consideration.

  WAR MEDAL ISSUE.
  Lieut.-Col. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists at the delay in issuing the medal for the European War; and whether this medal will shortly be issued to all the men who are clearly entitled to it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is hoped very shortly to issue the Army Order authorising the grant of this medal with permission to wear the riband. I have signed the necessary papers issuing the Order to-day, so that it will be possible for the men to wear it on Saturday.

  BILLETING (GROVE PARK).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War how many men

  385
  are billeted in private houses at or near Grove Park, Kent; and how many empty accommodation there is for men in huts in the same district?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiry is being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result in due course.

  AMBULANCE CHASSIS, GROVE PAKE.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether there are fifty or sixty brand new Crossley ambulance chassis lying out in the roads near Grove Park, Kent, without any protection from the weather, and rapidly rusting away; and, if so, who is responsible for this?
  Mr. CHURCHILL:I am informed that there are no Crossley chassis lying in the roads near Grove Park, but that some repaired Siddley-Deasy chassis were there for a short time pending disposal. These are now being removed for sale.

  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the strong feeling amongst men of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, he will now make a statement as to the reason of non-payment of certain emoluments promised to men under G. R. O. 4,840, December, 1918, and a subsequent Army Council Instruction, dated January, 1919, who had served certain periods without leave in this theatre of war?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: From the particulars given, I regret it is impossible to identify the Orders and Instructions to which the hon. Member refers. I shall be glad if he will send me copies or further details which will enable them to be identified.

  ROYAL ENGINEERS, BEDFORD.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War what are the circumstances attending the proposed dispatch of men of G Company, A Signal Depot, Royal Engineers, Bedford, to the East, in view of the fact that the men allege they have been recently informed that under an Army Council Instruction, dated 28th June, they were shortly to be demobilised; if he is aware that a large number of these men
  386
  are repatriated prisoners of war; and what steps, if any, it is intended to take to stop the dispatch of these men to the East?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No men who are eligible for demobilisation, under existing Regulations, are being sent to the East. As regards repatriated prisoners of war, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 25th February last to the effect that no special privileges can be conferred upon repatriated prisoners of war as against their comrades in the fighting line. Their health is carefully examined, but if they are fit in bodily health they must be treated alike according to the age and categories prescribed.

  PERSIA.
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether British troops are being sent to Persia to combat Soviet forces in the East; and, if so, whether he can state what number of troops have been sent?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS (ENTRANCE).
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to abolish the concessions made during the War for entrance at Woolwich and Sandhurst whereby sons of parents of moderate means were enabled to take the course; if so, will he state the reason for this reversion to the practice of reserving the commissions in the Army for the sons of wealthy parents by restoring the fees formerly in force at these colleges and abolishing the prize cadetships; and whether this matter will be reconsidered?
  Mr. FORSTER: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the right hon. Member on the 26th June.

  FISHERIES (CHIEF INSPECTOR).
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will state what advantages the Board expect to derive from the appointment of a temporary instead of a permanent chief inspector of fisheries; and whether the Board have made any effort, either in accordance with

  387
  the instructions of the President of the Board, dated the 25th February, or otherwise, to obtain the services of a permanent chief inspector of fisheries?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Board are dealing with a staff largely of new creation, and hope by deferring the appointment of their permanent chief inspector to give themselves every opportunity of selecting the right officer for that position, and to avoid prejudicing the prospects of promotion of existing members of their staff. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (WAR OFFICE OCCUPATION).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the continued occupation by the War Office staff of the examination halls and other parts of the University of London building is causing inconvenience to the university authorities, is interfering with the educational work of the schools and colleges of the university which are required to allocate for the examinations of the university rooms used for teaching, and that the occupation of the east and west galleries interferes seriously with the conduct of the practical tests organised for students and examinees in different branches of science; and whether he can now state when these halls and galleries of the university buildings will be restored to the university for carrying on the educational work proper to the university?
  Sir A. MOND: I am fully aware of, and much regret, the great inconvenience caused by the occupation of the university galleries by part of the staffs of the War Office. It is impossible, however, to give a definite date by which the galleries will be vacated. I have been and am still in communication with the War Office upon the subject, and, so far as I am concerned, every possible effort has been and is being made to restore the galleries to the university at the earliest date possible.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask whether the fault rests with the War Office or with the First Commissioner of Works for this long delay?
  Sir A. MOND: I do not think the fault lies with either, but it is owing to the diffi-
  388
  cult circumstances in which we are placed in dealing with the staffs of the War Office.
  Mr. BILLING: Why not use the empty German Embassy premises in Carlton House Terrace with a view to relieving the pressure on other buildings?
  Sir A. MOND: The German Embassy in Carlton House Terrace during the War has been utilised by, I think, the Swiss. Embassy, which took charge of German affairs. It has never been considered advisable to take it over as British Government property, and I do not imagine that that policy will be varied now.

  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  Mr. H. JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller how many motors and lorries are being used at Chepstow and Beachley in connection with the shipyards, and how many of the motors are being used for other purposes?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING(Colonel L. Wilson): The number of motor cars and omnibuses being used at Chepstow and Beachley in connection with the shipyards is eighteen. There are no motors used for any other purposes.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for the economic construction of those yards at the present moment?
  Colonel WILSON: My right hon. Friend the Shipping Controller is responsible.
  Mr. JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether any decision has been come to as to what is to be done with the national shipyards at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury; and whether it would be in the interests of national economy to close the Beachley yard and sell the material?
  Colonel WILSON: With reference to the first part of my hon Friend's question, I regret that I can add nothing to the full statement made in this House on 19th May last. Negotiations are now proceeding for the sale of the shipyards, including Beachley, and under the circumstances it is not possible to adopt the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. JONESasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to an article on Government housing at Chepstow, which appeared on page 115 of the "Architects' and Builders' Journal" for 13th March, 1918, stating that two rows each of six cottages, planned about twenty-six to the acre, have been built at the entrance to the estate on the Beachley-Chepstow Road, and that the third bedroom in each cottage measures only 6 ft. l½ ins. by 6 ft. 7½ ins. by 7 ft. 9 ins. high, and that the only window in the small larder opens directly on to the earth closet; whether the person responsible for the preparation of the plans has received an appointment at £l,000 per annum under the housing scheme; and whether the Ministry of Health would be prepared to approve of similar plans if submitted by local authorities?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have seen the article referred to, and have been in communication with the Minister of Shipping. It is presumed that the houses referred to form part of the Pennsylvania Housing Scheme, Beachley, and, as stated by the Parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Shipping on 27th June, the number of houses on the estate are from nine to ten per acre. Only one row of six cottages has been built, and the smallest bedroom is not less than 65 sq. ft. in floor area either in this block or in any of the houses being built on the estate. No earth closets are being provided.

  WAR ORPHANS.
  Mr. LYLEasked the Minister of Health if he will state the numbers in the Poor Law institutions of England and Wales, during last week, of orphans who have lost both parents in the War, and motherless children whose fathers are serving or who have left their wives; and what action is being officially taken to stimulate the removal of these children from such surroundings?
  Dr. ADDISON: The Returns in my possession do not show this information. I have, however, consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions with a view to action being taken in any cases of this kind, on the lines indicated in the question, with which, I need hardly say, the Minister of Pensions and I myself entirely agree.
  Mr. BRIANT: Is it not the fact that in many cases soldiers' children are requested not to go to Poor Law schools, and is it not extremely unwise to suggest that Poor Law children which are equally, the care of the State should be treated less carefully than the children of soldiers?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have no information as to the first question and therefore the second does not arise.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any institutions in this country to which the orphan children of soldiers killed in the War can be sent?
  Dr. ADDISON: I would ask for notice of that question.
  Lieut.-Col. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is he aware that successive Presidents of the Local Government Board have promised to remove all children from the workhouse, and for how much longer will he continue this reactionary policy?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am not continuing any reactionary policy. I believe they are nearly all gone now, and I gave an answer not very long since stating the specific numbers; I cannot carry them in my head.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is he aware that the numbers are very considerable?

  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Minister of Health whether he can now state if he proposes to appoint a Depart mental Committee upon smoke abatement in order that they can complete their inquiries, commenced by a Departmental Committee of the Local Government Board, and interrupted in 1914 by the out break of war, with a view to reporting whether further legislation is required to secure the abatement of smoke nuisances in the interests of public health and fuel economy?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on this matter.

  MUNITIONS.

    SURPLUS LORRIES.
    Mr. FORESTIER-WALKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the

    391
    Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that a dispatch rider is given the chance of buying a motor cycle, and that under the resettlement scheme financial advances are made without interest; and would he consider if an Army motor lorry driver similarly could be given a chance of buying an overhauled lorry if he can find half the necessary capital?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS(Mr. James Hope): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Eastbourne by the Deputy-Minister of Munitions.

    ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES, WOOLWICH.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he proposes to adopt the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into the Royal Ordnance Factories, Woolwich; whether the factory is now used as a storage depot for completed ammunition and finished stores; and whether any such ammunition likely to be dangerous to the employés and the public is now stored there?
    Mr. HOPE:The recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry have been substantially accepted, and steps have already been taken to give effect to many of them. On the second and third parts of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 14th July to the hon. Member for Maidstone by the Deputy-Minister of Munitions.

  PENSIONS (WEEK'S EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amounts paid in pensions arising out of the War and in out-of-work pay, respectively, in the week ending 5th July, 1919?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. The total amount paid in pensions, including treatment and training allowances, but exclusive of the cost of treatment and administrative expenses for the week ending 5th July, 1919, was, approximately, £1,330,000. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the
  392
  Minister of Labour that the amount spent in out-of-work donation for the same period was, approximately, £820,000.

  CIVIL SERVICE (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that any Civil servant retiring at a later date than March, 1915, was given an advantage over his senior colleagues who retired in 1914 and previous years; whether any man retiring since 1915 has been allowed, because of the greatly increased cost of living, to count 25 per cent. of his war bonus in calculating his pay for pension purposes; whether six or seven different war bonus awards have been made during the past three years; whether each award has been considerably higher than that which preceded it; whether the award in 1919 was £60 a year plus 20 per cent. of an officer's pre-war salary, as against a bonus of 2s. per week in March, 1915; whether the officer retiring in 1919 is considered to be treated equally with his colleagues who retired in 1918, 1917, 1916, 1915, and 1914; and whether, as the increase in the cost of living affects all these men to an equal degree, he will endeavour to find an equitable basis which shall be applicable to them all?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The details of the arrangement referred to were stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the hon. Member for the Devonport Division on the 16th April last. It is the case that there have been numerous awards of war bonus at increasing rates during the last four years, and as the principle of the arrangement with regard to pension is that within certain limits war bonus shall be included in the calculation, it follows that the increases of war bonus are reflected in the awards of pension

  NAVAL OFFICERS' INCREASED PAY.

    GOVERNMENT DECISION.
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the pay of naval officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The decisions, I am glad to say, were taken by the Government

    393
    this morning Communication will be made to the Fleet at once, and a Press notice will be issued to the newspapers, by the latest, to-morrow. The White Paper giving the recommendations of the Jerram-Halsey Committee, with the decisions of the Government, will be printed forthwith, and should be in the hands of Members very early next week.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the new scales of pay and allowances be antedated, and, if so, to what date?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards pay, the new scale will come in as from 1st February for all officers in the Navy on 1st May. As regards allowances, the new scale will come in as from 1st July.

  TREATY OF PEACE [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers—(King's Recommendation signified).—To-morrow.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

  TRADE DISPUTES (No. 2) BILL (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Leave given to Standing Committee E to make a Special Report in respect of the Trade Disputes (No. 2) Bill brought up, and read;
  Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 137.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 137.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1919–20 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Estimate presented,—showing the further Vote on Account which is required for the year 1919–20 [by Command]; referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 139.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee D.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 138.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 138.]
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Amendment to—
  Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Bill [Lords],
  Public Notaries (Articled Clerks) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Amendments to—
  Official Solicitor Bill [Lords], without Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Oldham and Chadderton Tramways and Thornaby-on-Tees Corporation Tramway." [Tramways Provisional Orders Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners; and for other purposes."[Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Pembroke District Gas Company."[Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Birmingham in regard to their tramway undertaking and for the construction of street improvements; and for other purposes." [Birmingham Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nuneaton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords],
Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords],
Birmingham Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
Lieut-Colonel THORNE: May I ask why this Motion has been moved to-day? Is it the intention of the Government to give two days next week—
Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. and gallant Member should have asked that question before I put the Motion. No Debate is permissible on this Motion.
Question agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 15th July.]
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Clause on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Arnold), is in order, but I think the same proposal is in a better form later on the Paper, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) and other hon. Members. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is disposed to move his Amendment.

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE. —(Increase of Limit of Exemption from Income Tax.)
    Two hundred and fifty pounds shall be substituted for one hundred and thirty pounds as the limit of exemption in Section ten of the Income Tax Act, 1918. — [Mr. Arnold.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. ARNOLD: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The effect of this new Clause is to raise the exemption limit for Income Tax from £130 to £250, and I will argue the case for this new Clause on two grounds—first, on the ground of principle, and, secondly, as a business proposition. First, on the ground of principle, I cannot be accused of exaggeration when I say that£250 today is not, in view of the increase in the cost of living, worth more than about£125 in pre-war values, and, of course, the rate of Income Tax is now very much higher than it was in pre-war days. Not only so, but other taxation on the poorer classes, particularly in respect of tea and sugar, has been greatly increased during the War, and, in my view, the burdens on the poorer classes are now much too heavy. The present Income Tax exemption limit is£130 a year, and£130 is, in view of the increase in the cost of living, not worth more than about£65 in pre-war values. In effect, this Budget levies Income Tax on incomes of£65 a year in pre-war values, and that is quite opposed to the sound principle of taxation. We are living in a period of reconstruction. Everybody is thinking and talking about reconstruction, and I urge that we ought to try to reconstruct our tax system in accordance with sound principles. But that is not being done. In these days very little
    420
    attention is being paid to principles of taxation or anything else, and principles of taxation are being flouted at every turn, particularly in regard to the burdens imposed on the poorest classes. The simple truth is that in a great many cases Income Tax at the present time, owing to this low exemption limit of£130 a year, is being taken from money which is required to buy the necessaries of life, and to buy nutritious food for a man, his wife, and children. That is the point.
    This proceeding is not only a great hardship on those who have to pay the tax, but it is also most unwise from the point of view of the State. To take Income Tax from the wage earners and others with these very small incomes is going counter to what ought to be the post-war policy of the Government, and that is, to build up the health and physique of the people who have suffered so much during the last four years. During the War every care was taken—and most wisely and properly taken—to promote to the highest possible point the physical efficiency of the troops, and I submit that it would be well that the physical efficiency of the workers should also receive some consideration from the Government. It was in the interest of the State to promote the physical efficiency of the soldier, and it is equally in the interest of the State to promote the physical efficiency of the worker; but to take Income Tax from people with small incomes is going counter to that principle. It is reducing physical efficiency, and thus tending to decrease output, though the Government is constantly asking for increased output, and the whole proceeding is having a bad effect on the health and welfare of the people. If I might be allowed to adapt a phrase of the Prime Minister I would say this: You cannot build up an A 1 nation on C 3 finance. That is really what the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think he can do, but it cannot be done. It is always a bad principle to levy Income Tax on those who are below a decent standard of living, and it is particularly unwise at the present time, especially in view of the high prices that are prevailing. I submit it would pay the State well—to say nothing of the relief to individuals—to raise the exemption limit for Income Tax to£250 a year.
    4.0 p.m.
    Let me look at the matter from the point of view of a business proposition. I say that it really is not worth while, from the point of view of revenue, to levy

    421
    Income Tax on those whose incomes are less than£250 a year. It is not a business proposition. How much revenue is got from people with these small incomes? The White Paper on Income Tax and Super-tax, published a few days ago, contains some most valuable statistics, and it is there seen that the gross amount of revenue got from Income Tax on incomes below£250 a year is only£7,886,000. That is the gross amount. From that you have to deduct the cost of collection. A short time ago I put a question on the Paper to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him what was the cost of collecting this Income Tax on incomes below£250 a year, and he replied that, so far as could be estimated, the cost of collection was£600,000 a year. Therefore, this gross revenue of£7,886,000 is reduced, after you deduct the cost of collection, to a net revenue of£7,286,000. The cost of collecting the Income Tax on these small incomes is about 7.½ per cent. of the revenue obtained. Whereas the cost of collecting the Income Tax on incomes above£250 a year is only about 1 per cent. of the revenue obtained. As regards incomes below£250 a year, not only is the cost of collection enormous, but the collecting of it from workers and others causes a great amount of irritation, friction, and inconvenience. It tends to increase the industrial unrest which is at present such a serious feature of our national life. The whole process means an enormous amount of irritation and expense. I cannot do better than quote some words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used during the Second Beading of the Finance Bill. It is true that he was not speaking about the Income Tax, but his remarks are entirely applicable to the point that I am now urging. These are the words which he used on that occasion:
    "If you have got a tax which is admittedly very difficult to assess fairly and very difficult to adjust to our complicated social conditions, if it is resented, and if it is considered unjust by a large part of your population, you will create a great social evil which may lead to resistance to the law. I do not mean violent open resistance, but you do not carry their good will, and it is one of the first canons of taxation that as far as may be you should do everything that you can to carry the good will of the taxpayer with you."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May,1919. col. 271, Vol. 116.]
    Can it be said that in levying the Income Tax on these people with small incomes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is carrying the good will of the taxpayer with him? He knows perfectly well that he is
    422
    not. It is causing the greatest unrest in the country, and if, unhappily, he should decide to continue this process, he will be going counter to that which he says is one of the first canons of taxation—
    "that as far as may be you should do everything that you can to carry the good will of the taxpayer with you."
    I do not think that human ingenuity could have devised a system which causes more friction, more inconvenience, more labour, and more upset for a smaller result in revenue. I know that it is argued that there are numerous abatements and that these tend to diminish the burden, and, as far as that goes, it is quite true, but that really is an argument for this new Clause. These abatements which have been most wisely given all reduce the yield of the tax, and they enormously increase the cost of collection. The whole process leads to a great waste of time both on the part of the taxpayer and on the part of the Inland Revenue officials. In nearly 2,000,000 cases forms have to be filled up, carefully scrutinised and examined by revenue officials, and then in the end owing to the abatements not one penny piece of revenue is obtained. This White Paper issued a few days ago reveals some astounding figures which bear very directly on the case that I am putting before the Committee. It shows that last year there were 5,346,000 persons liable for Income Tax, and of these no leas than 4,093,000, or about 75 per cent., had incomes of less than£250 a year. Of these 4,093,000 persons, 1,930,000, or nearly one half of them, are in the end exempt from the tax altogether owing to the abatements. Is this business? Is it worth while worrying 4,093,000 people in order to get£7,866,000 of revenue gross or£7,286,000 net after deducting the enormous cost of collection, more especially when nearly half of them, 1,930,000, are in the end exempt from the tax altogether] I can scarcely imagine anything more wasteful, more unbusiness like and more uneconomic. It would be much better to have done with all these laborious, and, I had almost said, absurd processes, and to make a clean cut and to exempt all those with incomes below£250.
    Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that he is prepared to accept the Clause which I hope to move shortly to increase the abatement in respect of a wife from £25 to£50. So far, so good, but when that is done the number of those who will fall out of this tax will be enormously increased. It would be

    423
    much better to make a clean cut of the whole business, and to exempt everybody with incomes below£250. It is frequently argued that although abatements are wisely and properly made in the case of a man's wife, and in the case of children, yet single men with incomes between£130 and£250 a year ought to pay Income Tax. After all, who are these single men Obviously, for the most part, they are young men, and young men who have fought in the War. They have lost two or three of the best business years of their lives. Their careers have been gravely prejudiced. We can never restore to them the same chance that they would have had before the War. Nothing can possibly do that, but to exempt them from Income Tax if their incomes are below£250 will do something to enable them to save a little money with a view to improving their position or with a view to marriage.
    There is another important consideration, and it has relation to the Insurance Act limit. Under the Insurance Act of 1911 the general limit was fixed at£160 a year. That was the Income Tax limit then, and it was done because it was felt that those with incomes less than£160 a year could not afford by their own unaided efforts to make provision for the contingencies of illness, sickness, and so forth. The Government themselves in the last fortnight have brought in a Bill to raise the Insurance Act limit for manual workers from£160 to£250 a year. What does it mean? It means that those with incomes below£250 a year will be subsidised by the State in order to make provision for illness and sickness. That is quite right, but it proves conclusively that these persons cannot afford to pay Income Tax. If they cannot afford, of their own unaided efforts, to make provision against illness, sickness, and so forth, they cannot afford to pay Income Tax. I submit that in raising the Insurance Act limit to£250 a year the Government have admitted the whole case for this new Clause. The Insurance Act limit was originally fixed at£160 because that was the Income Tax limit. Now that the Government have themselves spontaneously come forward and raised the Insurance Act limit to£250, they ought to raise the Income Tax limit to £250 also. That, really, is the only consistent course.
    424
    Let us look a little more closely at the finance involved in this new Clause. As I have pointed out, the gross loss to the revenue by the acceptance of it is£ 7,866,000, and the net loss is£7,286,000 after deducting the cost of collection. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that this new Clause cannot stand alone, and that if he accepts it a change will have to be made in the scale above£250. For instance, the present abatement of£120 in respect: of incomes of£400 will have to be increased; otherwise, if all incomes below £250 per year are exempt and the present abatement of£120 on incomes from£130 to£400 still obtains, the graduation will be too steep and too sudden. That is perfectly true. I do not know whether I should be in order in arguing this point at great length, but the arguments that I have been advancing do apply to a considerable extent to incomes between£250 and£400, because the present rate of tax, in my view, is too heavy on these incomes, which in many cases are very heavily burdened. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to intimate that he will accept this new Clause, and that he will. also alter the scale so as to give much needed relief to those with incomes from£250 to £400.
    In a previous Debate on this question, he indicated that, if a Clause such as I am moving were accepted, and if consequential changes were made above that limit, the loss might be increased from£7,886,000 to£16,000,000 or even £20,000,000. In these days, £16,000,000 or£20,000,000 is not really a large item for the Exchequer, but it is a very great burden on these poor people who have to find it. It is, in fact, only about l£ per cent. of the total revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to raise by his Budget this year. It really will not do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he cannot make good an amount like that. When the claims of the poorer classes of the community are being urged from this side of the House, he stands up at that box and says, "We cannot do it." It really would be much more in accordance with the fact if he said, "We will not do it." He can do it perfectly well. I have said before that when he wanted to institute his Preference duties£3,000,000 of revenue went without hesitation, and, when it was a question of giving relief to those who make big profits, half of the Excess

    425
    Profits Duty, amounting to a loss of from£50,000,000 to£100,000,000, was sacrificed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would exercise a little more courage and bold ness and face the position as he will have to do sooner than later, and if he had a capital levy—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member in his previous speeches on other Amendments went into all these matters, and it is not quite fair to repeat his speech on succeeding Amendments.
    Mr. ARNOLD: I bow to your ruling. It is only my anxiety that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not get up and say, "I am not sure that I can get the money elsewhere." Should I be in order in making a specific proposal which I have not made before, namely, that the rate of Income Tax on bigger incomes, over£1,000, should be increased by 3d. or 4d.? If that were done, this money could be found. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have done that this year. The -wealthier classes were expecting an increase in Income Tax, and the fact that it did not come was a pleasant surprise. They have been lulled into a sense of fake security by this Budget. The fact that the Income Tax has not been increased on larger incomes is a direct incentive to extravagant living, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has. strongly deprecated. If he would make this change, he would do something to adjust these matters and bring the wealthier classes up against the facts. I do submit that it would be far better all round to stop this bad system of levying Income Tax on people with these very small incomes—a system which violates every principle of sound finance, and causes great hardship—and to make up the money in the way I have suggested, which would cause no real hardship at all, namely, by simply making an increase in the Income Tax of the wealthier classes less than they were expecting before the Budget was brought in. On all grounds of justice, sound fiscal policy, and wise State policy, there is an overwhelming case for this new Clause.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I take it, Mr. Whitley, from the intimation you have already made, that you desire that the Clause which has just been moved by the hon. Member for Penistone and the one standing further down on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, should be taken at one and the same time.
    426
    In view of that, I propose to say what I have to say in the discussion on the new Clause which has just been moved.
    The question of Income Tax is one that is causing a large amount of dissatisfaction at the present time, particularly among persons with small incomes. The party with which I am associated are sometimes blamed for trying to find relief for what are commonly described as the working classes, without any regard to the interests of another section of our people, namely, the lower middle class, whose incomes may be on a somewhat similar scale to the earnings of the working classes. I want to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee that, so far as the Labour party is concerned, they have no such intention. The Clause standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself is designed to deal with all persons with small incomes. The difficulty of the one section is just as great as that of the other, in view of the smallness of their incomes. I want to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the dissatisfaction in the ranks of those salaried persons who are sometimes described as forming the lower middle class, is just as great as the dissatisfaction that exists in the ranks of the working classes regarding this question. I do not think that the reasons for that dissatisfaction are difficult to find; one does not require to search very long for very good reasons why you find such a great amount of dissatisfaction regarding this matter. Firstly, you have the fact that the Income Tax exemption limit was lowered from£160 per year to£130 per year, and that, when once a person's income had exceeded£130, he was taxed on£120. Alongside of this fact you have also the fact that the standard of living has risen enormously. The standard of living is, roughly, 100 per cent. over the pre-war standard. With the Income Tax limit lowered and the standard of living raised, a very large number of our people to-day are placed in a great difficulty. The lowering of the Income Tax limit has roped in a very large number of persons who have been unaccustomed to paying Income Tax until quite recently. The raising of the cost of living coming on top of that places them, as 1 have said, in a very difficult financial position. It may be said in reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others who may take-part in this Debate, that as against that there have been considerable increases in

    427
    wages so far as the working classes are concerned. I think that can only be said with reference to certain sections of the working classes. A considerable number of them have only had their wages increased to a small extent; and when one looks at the position of the lower middle classes, I think that, generally speaking, their earnings have been increased only to a very small extent indeed, and in some cases there has been no increase at all. This places many of our people in a much worse position financially than they were in before the War. Not only have we had the direct taxation of those with small incomes increased, but their financial difficulties have been added to by increases that have been made in indirect taxation. If I may cite as an example the position of those with incomes under£3 per week prior to the War, according to the Budget of 1913/1914 the amount they were paying in direct and indirect taxation amounted, roughly, to£54,000,000. I do not pretend to give an exact figure, but I estimate that the amount that these same classes wall require to pay during the first year of peace will be no less a sum, in direct and indirect taxes, than£116,000,000. The pre-war tax on the section of our people that I am citing as an example amounted, roughly, to£6 per family per annum. The direct and indirect taxation on that same class during the first year of peace will, I estimate, amount to no less than£13 per family per annum. That is a very serious increase in taxation so far as persons with small incomes are concerned, and there is little wonder that there is a great amount of dissatisfaction regarding this matter. During the course of a former discussion on this subject, as has already been pointed out, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if he were to give effect to the terms of this new Clause it would mean a loss on the current year, roughly speaking, of no less than £8,000,000; and that, when the revision of the abatement came in on incomes above£250, it would amount possibly to£20,000,000. He pointed out that that was a shortage that he. could ill afford to bear.
    I want to submit to him for his consideration even yet that there are other places where he could find those£20.000,000, with less hardship on the parties from whom he would get the money. For instance, during the course of this Debate a great deal has been said about the
    428
    desirability of taking steps to secure a share of the enormous war profits that have been made. There I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were to take the proper steps, could find not only the£20,000,000 which would relieve him of the necessity of taxing those with incomes under£250 a year, but a very much larger sum. One of my hon. Friends in an earlier Debate stated his opinion that, roughly, £1,000,000,000 were made by the war profiteers in the course of the last five years. There the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a fruitful field, if he will take the necessary steps, for securing a much larger sum of money than he is obtaining from the tax now under discussion. May I suggest to him another place from which he could possibly draw the£20,000,000 without imposing any hardship upon those from whom he would find the money'? It is stated that there are at the present moment no less than 148 persons in this country who are drawing incomes of over£100,000 a year. It is also stated that there are 31,765 persons with incomes of over£3,000 a year. Their total income, after meeting the taxation imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, comes to something like£163,000,000. I suggest to him very humbly that either from the one section or the other it would be possible for him to find those£20,000,000, without imposing hardships that will cut into the standard of living of the people from whom the money is found; whereas, if he insists on continuing to tax persons with incomes amounting to less than£250 per year, he is really cutting into the standard of living of those people. That is too serious a state of matters to continue without causing great dissatisfaction, and the right hon. Gentleman can take it from me that not only is there an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, but that dissatisfaction is beginning to express itself in quite a different form. In various parts of the country there is a very strong agitation amongst those whose incomes are under£250 per year in favour of becoming passive resisters; to refuse to pay taxes with a view of forcing the hands of the Government. It would not be a very desirable state of matters if we had a large section of our people passive re-sisters against taxation. In conclusion, I would strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman rather to give this matter his serious consideration with a view to ensuring the necessary relief to that section of our people for whom we are pleading—

    429
    that section which cannot afford to pay Income Tax without cutting into their standard of life. As my hon. Friend who moved this new Clause has stated, and as I myself have pointed out, there are many sources open to the right hon. Gentleman if he will only turn his attention to them. He could there find, I think, a much larger sum than is required to bring about the abolition of the tax with which this Clause deals. I hope, before the discussion ends, that we shall have the Chancellor agreeing to our proposal.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The right hon. Gentleman has suggested in passing, without arguing—as he was entitled to do —the various places in which he thinks I might look to make good any deficiency caused in the Budget by the alteration he has supported. It would not be in order on the Amendment before us for me to enter into any detailed explanation of the reasons why i do not follow the course pointed out to me by my right hon. Friend. I have dealt with the capital levy on several occasions. Yesterday I dealt with the question of the taxation of profits made during the War. If I were to repeat myself I should be out of order; also if I attempted to develop these arguments. But I trust it will be some satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman to reflect that those fortunate, or not always fortunate, people, the possessors of immense wealth, do, at any rate, contribute more than 10s. out of every£1 they receive during their lifetime, and that we propose to take£4 out of every£10 they leave at their death. They do not escape quite scot-free even at the present time. I do not know to what limit the right hon. Gentleman would think it fair, equitable, or expedient to carry the appropriation by taxation of incomes which he and I, at any rate, will never enjoy, and which we should not know what to do with if we had them. The hon. Gentleman who moved, and the right hon. Gentleman who himself supported this Amendment, argued largely from the fall in the present value of money as measured by its capacity for purchasing commodities. The fall in the value of money is an argument which is freely used by each Member to support that particular thesis which he is sustaining at the moment. But I observe that the same hon. Members treat with some impatience any attempt to apply the argument to incomes beyond their range of vision or to circum-
    430
    stances not within their immediate purview. At any rate, may I suggest to the hon. Member that if£250 is only equivalent to£125 now, an Income Tax of 2s. 3d., which is a standard rate for incomes under£500, is only equivalent to Is. l½d., and that he must adjust both sides of his argument under the hypothesis upon which he proceeds? The hon. Member drew a further argument from the Bill which was introduced and read a second time to alter the limit under the Insurance Act. He stated that that was done in consequence of the cost of living having risen. He is mistaken.
    What was the reason that actuated the Government? The reason was that the rise in wages would automatically remove a very large number of people from the purview of the former Act, and therefore deprive them of advantages for which they had insured. Therefore the reason for which the Government introduced that Bill do not support the thesis sustained by the hon. Gentleman to-day. Then the hon. Member, in his capacity of severe economist, wishes the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exercise a strict scrutiny over all public expenditure, and to husband the national resources, and says, "After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is exaggerating in putting in his figure at£20,000,000. Even so, it is merely a trifle in our Budget. What is£20,000,000?" That is just the kind of criticism which I am accustomed to receive from hon. Members who on other occasions are only too ready to denounce the Government for its extravagance.
    The Committee, I am quite sure, will not expect, after what I have said at earlier stages of our Debate, that I shall be able to accept this Amendment. I did yesterday indicate my readiness to accept, or myself to move, a couple of Amendments. One of them, suggested by my right hon. Friend, opposite, extends the age-limit at which children's allowances can be granted in abatement of Income Tax, provided the child is continuing in whole-time education—if I may use such a phrase, I also indicated my readiness— and I think it met with the general approval of the House—to double the wife's allowance under the present Budget. I think that is as far as I should be pressed to go on the present occasion. I see that there is an Amendment down to double the wife's allowance, which we shall come

    431
    to presently, and which I shall accept, so that I do not need to put down an Amendment of my own. Taking my stand upon that, may I remind the House what is the effective Income Tax charge, and what are the allowances, and how they compare with the pre-war position in respect of these small incomes.
    Before the War there was no wife's allowance. Before the War for children there was an allowance of£10; it is now£25. The one allowance is new; the other allowance has been more than doubled. In addition to those allowances a working man is entitled to deduct, and claim as an allowance, the sums paid for insurance on his life, or on that of his wife. He may claim an allowance for so much of any contribution to his trade union which is allocated for superannuation or death, and for similar contributions made by him to a friendly society. He may claim an allowance for any payment on account of tools, and so forth, and for the cost of clothing used exclusively or practically for working in—that is, his working suit. These are special allowances flowing from the general principles of the law. Assume that a man in respect of his tools, clothes, and life insurance to be entitled to an allowance of£10—which is a very reasonable sum—let me tell the Committee what the result is, compared with what it was before the War, when the Income Tax was charged at 9d. A single man with no dependants is worse off. In consequence of these allowances the married man with no children pays less than he ought to have paid before the War until his income exceeds£3 10s. per week. The married man with one child pays less than he would have done before the War until his income exceeds£4. The married man with two children pays less until his income is over£4 10s. per week. The married man with three children till over£5 per week; and the married man with four children until it is over£6 per week. Of course, if he has dependants the same allowance as is given to the child is given in the case of one parent or other dependant.
    Let me put the position in another way. I shall take£4 10s. per week, and see what is paid. The bachelor pays 4s. 6d. per week out of his£4 10s. The married man with no child, now having the£50 allowance—I have estimated upon that basis, the Committee will understand—
    432
    pays 2s. 4d. a week. The married man with one child pays Is. 3d per week. The married man with two children pays 2d. a week—less than he would have paid before the War. If you come to the man with£5 a week, or£250 per year—a little more than is suggested by my hon. Friend—the bachelor out of his£5 pays 5s. 7d. per week; the married man with no children pays 3s. 6d.; the married man with one child pays 2s. 5d.; the married man with two children pays Is. 4d.; the married man with three children pays 3d.; and the married man with four children pays nothing. Put it in another way, and let us endeavour to see exactly what the figures mean. With the new wife's allowance, and the allowance of £25 for each child or other dependant, the effective limit of exemption is: for the person with one allowance—that is, the wife only— £170; with two allowances—the wife and child or dependant— £195; with three, £220; with four, £245; with five, £270; and so on, with six, £295. It will be seen that the effect of the allowance is very material, that the relief which they give is very large, and that it is given, I think, where it is most needed and in cases where the obligations are greatest. There is another case which is not provided for, and it is that of a widower for whom someone acts as guardian of his children, and gets an allowance. There is the case of the eldest son of a young family whose father died, and he is left as the breadwinner, but he does not get an allowance for the woman who takes charge of the younger children. The same, I think, would apply if the daughter went out to work and had to pay someone to look after the younger children. That, of course, is a casus omissus, and I am ready to extend the provision to such cases.
    Mr. ADAMSON: That was just one of the points upon which I was going to hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer a manuscript new Clause, when I found that he was unwilling to raise the amount to£250.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad that I have anticipated the right hon. Gentleman, because I think that is a case where relief ought to be given, and if he will let me see the manuscript Clause which he refers to I will see whether we can agree to its terms and then insert it on Report. Of course, that is on the lines of relief already given, and it is an omitted case which we might very properly provide

    433
    for. As I was the first to mention it, perhaps I might propose it, and accept the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation in carrying it out. Seeing what the effect of the existing relief is, and what the taxation involves in respect of these cases, I cannot really consent to a proposal to fix the minimum at£250 with the natural consequences of having to extend the scale of relief is above that point in accordance with that large exemption. There are Gentlemen who think that people with£250a year ought to pay no taxation, but I am not one of them. After all, there ought to be some connection between taxation and representation. As we extend our system of representation there are people who would restrict our system of taxation. I think those who have power to vote the money and spend it ought to contribute to the raising of it—not, of course, in an unfair or unjust proportion, but I think it would be a bad day for everybody, for those exempted as well as others, if you do deliberately frame your taxation, which is the avowed object of hon. Gentlemen opposite, so that the mass of those who exercise political power have no personal responsibility for the financial consequences which their policy entails.
    I do not want to dwell upon this occasion on the extent to which the money raised by the State is already spent largely for the benefit of the small taxpayers and the poorer classes. I do not grudge it in the nature of our capacity to find it. I am not questioning the policy, but when you are looking at the obligation of these people you must look also at the other side of the account. It is not quite fair to consider only what they put into the National Exchequer, and you must consider what they get out of it in respect of education, insurance, old age pensions, advantages which no individual or party in the House would be willing to reverse, and say that in regard to them each individual must provide for himself and his children. Without these advantages perhaps there would be good ground for revising your whole system of taxation and giving them a larger measure of relief in regard to the burdens at present borne on their behalf by the State. Having regard, however, to the immense expenditure in which we are involved, which specially inures to the benefit of the poorer classes to the extent of the relief given since the War, and already increased in
    434
    this Budget, I cannot see my way to go any further in this direction at the present time.
    Major NEWMAN: This Debate has been largely academic with the exception of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Leader of the Labour party has suggested that those with over£3,000 a year should bear the extra burden, and the hon. Member who moved this new Clause urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt this suggestion because this was a time of reconstruction. He is quite right, but society itself is now being reconstructed, and what is happening now happens after every great war. There is the case of the well-paid mechanic earning his£5 a week, and he is rightly taking the position occupied formerly by the lower middle class, and has become the new rich class. The other side of the picture tells us something of the conditions of the new poor, who are the erstwhile middle class who are being driven down by high taxation and the cost of living. They have not the same chance-as the mechanic of making good their position by working longer hours and getting better pay. I know very well how this War, with higher taxation and increased cost of living, has hit the lower middle-class man, such as the clerk and the insurance agent, earning a precarious£150 a year or more, or the case of a woman living by herself with a small fixed income derived from dividends. I am in receipt of correspondence from this class almost every day of my life. I get scores of letters from them, and I have never had a letter from any man or woman with these small incomes asking me to put down an Amendment in this Budget or any other to exempt them from the Income Tax. Of course, they do not like paying the Income Tax even if it is a small amount, but whatever amount it is, it bears very hardly on them, but they are resolute and pay it without grumbling and without any passive resistance, because they want to do their bit to finance the country after the War.
    To say, however, that the well-paid mechanic ought to be exempt while the lower middle-class man is not exempted is nonsense. All these things, which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, the working classes get the middle-class do not get, such as free education, insurance, old age pensions, provision for children, and the hundred and one other things which we have to

    435
    pay for. The middle-class man with£150 a year does not get any of these things, and he has less cause to be grateful than the well-paid mechanic. For these reasons I wish the right hon. Gentleman could have accepted this Amendment, because I know it would be received very gratefully by those with small fixed incomes and those earning small salaries. However, the right hon. Gentleman says the cannot do it, and I have no more to say on that point. I trust that in the near future something will be done to put on a new footing our present idea as to the Income Tax, something in the nature of a poll tax to be paid equally at the beginning, and graduated upwards in a fair way until it reaches the very highest incomes.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I could not help being struck by the very sectional argument used both by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Arnold) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who seemed to have their eyes fixed on the one question whether one particular section of the community should or should not be exempted. It seems to me that this question ought to be approached from a much wider national standpoint. I rose rather to enforce the argument which was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of his speech. I am certain that unless those who exercise political power bear some small part of the expenditure, we shall get into an endless bog of expense, and get a thoroughly bad atmosphere as regards economy. What we are always preaching when it suits us to criticise others is that we want greater national economy, it is all very well to preach it in the abstract, but the only way to bring it about is to create an atmosphere which will cause it, and, in my humble opinion, you will never get that until practically everybody in the Kingdom is subject to one tax, namely, the Income Tax.
    5.0 p.m.
    I have heard speeches made years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and certainly by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, arguing that every citizen ought in some degree to be subjected to Income Tax. I am disposed to think myself that that is a very sound policy, making the small exception that those at the very bottom of the scale, the very poorest, should be allowed free-
    436
    dom from it. I would, however, make the exemption very low, and I should never dream of raising it from£130 to£250—in fact I should be rather inclined to go to other way. I am not asking for heavy taxation at the lower end of the scale, far from it. 1 shall be content if the lowest pay only a farthing or a halfpenny, because it would make them feel at a General Election that if they vote for a policy which is admittedly going to cost millions, they themselves will have to contribute something towards it. That surely is a wise and far-seeing national policy. But it is quite opposed to the two speeches with which this Amendment was introduced into this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me quite recently, in answer to a question, that while the total number of electors at the last election exceeded 21,000,000, the total number of Income Taxpayers was 3.400.000, and though, of course, you cannot take these figures as absolutely comparable, yet they show that, roughly speaking, six-sevenths of the electors are not subject to Income Tax, and yet those six-sevenths are predominant in dictating what is to be the policy of the country. If we really believe that national economy is necessary, it is essential that almost every citizen should be subject to the Income Tax, which is the main source of our revenue. And if debates on Finance Bills year after year have that object in view, I think they will be to the national benefit. The right hon. Member for West Fife seemed more particularly anxious to penalise those who are fortunate or unfortunate enough to have very high incomes. I do not myself believe that from the national point of view there is any great objection to rich men, who, after all, are not criminals. They have their value to the nation, more particularly those who are conscientious and try to do their duty. There are many instances which hon. Members of this House can call to mind, where rich men have started a charitable or other institution for the public benefit which otherwise would not have been set up by the State, and although, of course, it is perfectly right that rich men should pay a high rate of taxation, it ought not to be such a rate as must eventually abolish them out of the nation. Those who have watched public life can testify

    437
    to the usefulness and services rendered by citizens of that class, and while they may be asked to contribute a very high rate of Income Tax, more particularly under present circumstances, yet it is not only upon them that the tax should be put, but it should fall upon practically all incomes so as to create an atmosphere of economy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have listened to the greater part of the very interesting speeches on this. Amendment, but not one of the speakers, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has gone to the root of the matter at all. Neither did the Mover or Seconder, although their arguments were extremely interesting and clever. I am the more glad to have this opportunity of going to the root of the question because I have been longing to reply to another speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which the right lion. Gentleman pointed out that the workman who did not smoke, drink intoxicants, or tea, or eat sugar, would escape taxation altogether if he were exempted from the Income Tax. I am going to deal with that argument, but first I should like to say I am supporting this Amendment not because I like it, but because I should prefer it to go a good deal further, and to exempt entirely incomes up to£400, for where there is a family of children to educate a man on such an income is very badly off indeed. That concession, which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be induced to make, would cost the State approximately £ 8,000,000, owing to the number of people who would be exempted. The larger concession which my hon. Friend the Member for Peniston (Mr. Arnold) proposed would cost£20,000,000, and I quite agree with the hon. Member that even that is not a very great sum as things go at present. We are spending£60,000,000 on the bread subsidy. I do not know what the coal subsidies will amount to. Our Navy costs us£112,000,000, and our Army£440,000,000, and to say that this exemption, which I consider is just, and which would allay the unrest that now exists and is coming to the surface, an exemption which would increase the general welfare of the mass of the population—to say that this£ 20,000,000 cannot be afforded in face of the way we are pouring out money, often in very questionable directions, is to put a very poor argument into the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    438
    It is not merely the working man I am thinking of—the term "working man" used in the narrow sense. I am thinking also of the small professional man, the struggling little shopkeeper, the people who are being ground between the millstone of the big co-operative societies and the big trust companies. I want these people, for instance, to be free to live a separate business life. I speak, too, for the clerks, for the black-coated coterie, the people who are hit tremendously by the rise in the cost of the necessaries of life. It is the bachelors who will largely pay this tax, because married men with children are exempt. But many of these bachelors are returned soldiers, to whom we owe everything. They are trying to save money, it may be, to get married and to set up house for themselves. They have been spoken of by one hon. Member as not being respectable, but I cannot agree with that. They are trying to set themselves up in business, and I think all Members of the Committee will agree that they ought not to be specially penalised because they are bachelors.
    Let me come now to the case of the working man who is exempted from Income Tax, who does not smoke tobacco, who does not drink intoxicants or tea, who docs not eat sugar, who does not write cheques, and who, therefore, as my right hon. Friend suggests, docs not pay taxes. I should like to advance one or two reasons why these men should not be taxed. The money that is now required is wanted largely to meet the interest on loans. It is not to pay for the War, because the War has been paid for. Take the case of the Napoleonic Wars. They were paid for at the time, but we are still paying interest on the debt we piled up then. It is an unsound suggestion, therefore, to say that the money is wanted to pay for the War—as unsound as it would be to suggest that it is wanted to pay for the Peninsular Wars. My point appears a little complicated, yet, when I explain it, it will be found to be extremely simple. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife fitted out a yacht and invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the members of this Committee to accompany him on a cruise in the East Indies. Suppose the party were wrecked on a desert island and compelled to fend for themselves They set to work, they lived a Robinson

    439
    Crusoe existence, and, after a time, built a ship with wood in the absence of the owner of the island —
    The CHAIRMAN: The East India islands are a long way away from the Clause.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was trying to show exactly what has happened during the last five years, and why it is not fair now to make men with small incomes of £250 a year, or less, pay In come Tax. We built our ship, we sailed about, we were rescued, and we were cine-matographed as the people who had been shipwrecked—
    Mr. HOHLER: Is this really in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is contesting my ruling. I gave him the most courteous hint I could that he was going too far.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will drop the argument at once, and go straight away to the larger case, and show why we are not now, in raising this money for taxation, paying for the War at all, but are merely paying interest on the debt. The War was waged with munitions, by soldiers clothed with uniforms, and by stores that were sent out, tanks, guns, etc., all of which were produced by labour in this country and paid for by labour. Here comes in the simile I was going to use, and it is this, that the owner of the island might just as well have said to the shipwrecked party I described, "You ought to pay me now for the things which you used on my island." That is exactly the position we are faced with now. The people actually paid for the War by producing the things with which the War was waged. The great majority of those who did that are working people in the broad sense of the word. They are people who did work of national importance. The well-to-do members of the community are owed money by the State, and, although you are going to heavily tax them, it is not fair to heavily tax small wage earners at the present moment, seeing that they have already paid for the War with their labour; yet you are asking them to pay the interest by further taxation. I am afraid that that is at the bottom of the unrest which is coming to a head throughout, in the mining districts especially, where the people who earn good wages, and, by the way, work very hard,
    440
    are objecting to paying this Income Tax. I say that they are perfectly justified in so doing, and good statesmanship would at once drop this proposal to tax low incomes. The Budget came as a great relief to the well-to-do classes. Although I am not a pauper I was disappointed in it. I thought it was going to heavily tax the well-to-do classes. I hoped a Budget would come which would give such a shock to the country that all this riotous extravagance and luxury trades would be stopped.
    The CHAIRMAN: Clearly that is a question for the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that if we had these general speeches on every Amendment we should not get along at all.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My arguments may not be clear, but I think they will be accepted shortly, that this taxation of the small wage earners with£250 income is unjust and should be dropped, and it will not pay us in the short run or in the long run. I make a last appeal that this course will be adopted and this further concession made to the people on the poverty line.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I think it will be agreed that the only basis upon which taxation can be imposed is the ability to pay it. I certainly hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way clear to accept the Amendment. He stated all that had been done for people with low incomes and mentioned that the allowance per child had been raised from £10 before the War to£25 at present, and that an additional allowance had been made of£50 for a wife. He omitted to tell the Committee that the limit at which taxation commenced before the War was£160. So that actually during the War period we have had the limit reduced, which has been an increase in the burden upon those with small incomes. Two hundred and fifty pounds to-day docs not represent a point at which a person can afford any taxation beyond the indirect taxes. I agree that every citizen with an income should be made to feel that he will contribute something in the form of taxation for the general carrying on of the State, and the only fair way in which that could be done would be by the abolition of all indirect taxation. The workman and the person with a small income pay out of all proportion in the form of indirect taxa-

    441
    tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always puts his taxes upon commodities that are consumed in greater quantity because they bring in a greater amount of revenue. Those commodities in the main are necessaries for the greater portion of the population. Essential foodstuffs are taxed far and away beyond what is reasonable as compared with the luxury-consuming element of the country in the person of those who have very good incomes and who can afford to indulge in the luxury side of life which is denied to those with slender incomes.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned all the good things that the State had done for these people in the form of old age pensions and national insurance. Why did the State initiate those reforms'! For no other reason than that they required that every precautionary step should be taken to give opportunities for those whose incomes were low to have provision made for them because it was impossible on their incomes to make provision for themselves, and they gave that direct interest and responsibility by compelling industry to contribute a share, the person who benefits to contribute a share and the nation, which gets the greatest benefits of all out the Insurance Act, to contribute its quota to the sum total that went to make the provision against sickness or unemployment. These reforms were initiated because it was impossible for the people for whom they were intended to pay any direct contribution over and above a given amount. The State has not rendered its full measure due to those with incomes less than£250 per annum. It is said, the more children you are responsible for the freer you are from this form of direct taxation. But surely you are paying more. The father responsible for the rearing of four or five children under the age of sixteen is called upon to spend a greater amount on their annual upkeep than the allowance he receives from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The responsibility ought not to be wholly on the father or mother; it ought to be on the State; and if you are going to cripple those with small incomes in the proper upbringing of their children the State will be the sufferer just as much as will the children and their parents. I urge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give a more sympathetic and real consideration to the matter. An income of£5 per week, with the cost of living as it is and with the threat that it is
    442
    going to increase, will, to my mind, act very arbitrarily upon those with small incomes. It does not represent the proper standard of life that we should desire to see. I am not certain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right when he says that every workman, in addition to his other allowances, has an allowance of 10 per annum for clothes and food. I think he will find that that applies only to special cases and special industries, such as ironstone mining, blast furnaces, steel workers, and acid workers, where the clothes are destroyed very rapidly by the very nature of the industry.
    Mr. STEWART: I think the hon. Member (Mr. Hayday) rather contradicted himself. He wished to have everything by direct taxation, and yet he proposes that people with incomes of£250 should not pay any direct taxation.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I said they should pay direct taxation but abolish the indirect form.
    Mr. STEWART: Under the old scale of taxation we used to pay about half direct and half indirect. Now it is 80 per cent-direct and 20 per cent. indirect, and if you were to take off all the taxes from tobacco-and beer, of course the Income Tax would have to be very largely increased. I rise to back up the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Cecil). I think everyone should pay Income Tax, because it is well to cultivate a sense of responsibility in the citizens of the country. So far from considering it with regret that more people are brought within the tax-gatherer's net, I think it is one of the few benefits the War has given us, that it has been the greatest redistribute or of wealth that it is possible to imagine. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut-Commander Kenworthy) said the workmen had paid for the War with their labour, and therefore they now resented being called upon to pay anything towards the taxation of the country. But the increase in wages has been very great, and I do not believe if it was fairly put to the working people they would at all object to bearing their share. The taxation of the country is like an inverted pyramid. It is in the hands of a very few, and the broader we can make the basis of taxation the better for the country. I listened with profound regret to a remark by the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold), whom we acknowledge to be an authority on matters of economics from

    443
    his own point of view, but he showed that he has lost all sense of proportion when he said a matter of£20,000,000 in the revenues of the country was a small matter. It shows the lengths to which economists in search of votes are prepared to go. I think, when he reads in the papers what he has said, and thinks it over, he will not look back upon it with any great satisfaction.
    I should like to say a word about the lower middle class—people who are not under the Insurance Act and who like to send their children to school. There are tens of thousands of middle-class households in which, when they have paid their rates and taxes and school bills, and what charities they can afford to subscribe to, there is less money left for food than there is in the houses of many people who pay no Income Tax at all. It should be borne in mind that these are people whose incomes have not been added to during the War, and we are doing what is quite fair in asking people with good wages To bear a certain proportion of the taxation of the country, and very liberal allowances which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given, which produce the effect that a man with£270 a year and four children pays no Income Tax at all. It is an encouragement to people to have children, and in that, I think, the Income Tax is a wise and statesmanlike measure.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I want to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer one point in connection with this tax. I am not going to vote against the Government on this Amendment. I do not think it is right for hon. Members to allow demands for special privileges to influence their votes. Hon. Members in this House and candidates outside will do a great injury to the authority of this House if they put themselves up to auction. During the last election we were asked about pensions and allowances, and I told my discharged soldiers and sailors quite frankly that if there was to be any bidding for votes on pensions and allowances, I was not a bidder. I am not a bidder on this occasion, but I should be very glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give this matter and the increase in the limit of In-come Tax his sympathetic consideration as soon as money is available for the purpose. I do not like reducing the Excess Profits Duty by 40 per cent. one day and next day refusing consideration to a man
    444
    whose income does not exceed£250 a year. During the War many companies were asked to increase their output largely, and they were accorded special privileges to increase their output. They were given grants out of the money which was due to the Treasury from their Excess Profits Duty. I believe, also, that special consideration is given to businesses with respect to the increased cost of repairs. No privilege has been given to the workman. He has been asked to increase production, and during the next few years he will be pressed still further to increase production. The workman says, "My hours are seven or eight per day, and if I work seven or eight hours per day I am not liable to Income Tax, but if I work overtime four or five hours that brings me within the Income Tax rule, and I have to pay Income Tax." The man who works overtime is exhausting his bodily capital, because he is consuming his power to work in future years, and he should have special consideration for that. If the right hon. Gentleman would base the man's contribution to Income Tax on the regular trade union hours of work and the trade union rate of wages, and say, "If you earn more, if you work harder, we will not charge you Income Tax upon it," I think that would be a very great incentive to the man to put his back into his job and turn out all the work he can.
    I believe that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could alter he system of collection it would do a great deal to get rid of friction. A man has to make a return and he has to pay his Income Tax after he has spent the money. Could not he invent some sort of process by which the income Tax could be deducted from the man's wages before the wages are paid to him? If that were done, the man would not escape his taxation. Probably he would not like to pay Income Tax any more than he likes to do it now, but it would enable him to pass the impost on to the consumer, as is done in other ranks of life. All taxation eventually is passed on to the consumer. A large company which pays dividends free of Income Tax makes provision in its cost account for the amount of taxation which it has to pay. That amount appears in the cost account as an item, exactly the same as a ton of coal or a bit of ironstone, or whatever stores are used in the manufacture of the article produced. It is, consequently, passed on to the consumer. If the working man had to

    445
    pay his Income Tax through the office before he received his wages he would say, Very well, I am nominally paid a wage of£2 2s. 6d. a week, but when it is handed to me it is only£2 1s. 6d., because Is. is deducted for Income Tax. That£2 1s. 6d. does not meet my needs, and the cost of living." Consequently he applies for an increase of wages, and thereby the impost which is put upon him by the Government is passed on to the proper person to bear it, namely, the consumer of the article he produces. That, I believe, will get rid of a great deal of irritation among the working people with regard to the payment of Income Tax.
    I do not quite follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures. He said that a man with a wife and three children did not pay Income Tax if they had£240 a year. The abatement is£130, the allowance for the wife£50, and for each child£25, which amounts to£75, so that he does not pay Income Tax unless his income exceeds£255. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer's promise to increase the allowance on account of a wife will also mean an increased allowance of£25 in respect of a housekeeper. I should also like to draw attention to the question of allowances for clothing. In my Constituency we have a large import business in oil, especially creosote oil. The men tell me that their clothes are worn out and rotten very quickly by the action of the fumes, and that proper allowances are not granted to them for their clothes. The surveyors of Income Tax cut down the allowance. One man assured me that the. cost of clothes to him in one year was£9 or£10, and his allowance had been cut down to£4. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will instruct his surveyors to he a little more generous in allowances for clothes, especially considering the high price of clothes to-day. This is rather a sore point among a good many of my Constituents.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member has quoted me correctly then I must have been in error. A married man with three children and a wife living would not pay Income Tax until his income exceeded£4 10s. a week. At£5 a week he would pay 3d. a week Income Tax. A married man with four children would not pay Income Tax until his income exceeded£5 a. week. At£5 10s. a week he would pay
    446
    3d. a week Income Tax. Either I made a mistake or the hon. Member must have misunderstood me.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sure that we appreciate the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As an old official of the Treasury I do so sincerely. We always treat him as if the public revenue came down like manna from Heaven, and we are all asking him for re-mission, while at the same time he has to get fresh taxation, which means a burden on the rest of the community. We agree with the general principle he has laid down that taxation and representation ought to go together, and that as far as possible those who are causing added cost and imposing taxation on the country ought to feel responsibility for the proposals that they make. On the other hand, there is one other principle to which I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would assent in theory, and, as far as he is able, in practice, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for the Aston Division (Mr. Evelyn Cecil), and that is that there is a certain minimum level of income at which level the recipient ought not to be taxed for Income Tax. Given that he or she only possesses that income, he or she ought to go free, but as soon as the income passes the lower level, as soon as he is in a proper position to expend money on beer, tobacco, and the other amenities of life, then he ought to be in a position to pay Income Tax also. The question arises what is that level? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appreciating the position from the point of view of national income, to say whether it is not possible, while conserving the income of the nation as far as possible, to meet the hardest cases that come up, which is the object of this Amendment, and which I understand he may be willing to meet by some other Clause destined for the same purpose, if not to the full degree?
    If we take a minimum income of£130 a year, what does that really mean? It is equivalent in purchasing power now to an income of about£65 a year, or about 25s. a week pre-war. If we were debating this question in Committee before the War, I do not think there is anyone who would want to charge such an income with Income Tax. If I add to that income the allowance of£25 a year for a wife, which

    447
    is equivalent before the War to an allowance of about half that amount, £12 10s. a year, which is about 5s. a week, and if we were debating the question before the War, no one would propose to tax a man and his wife for Income Tax the moment their income exceeded 30s. a week. Therefore, we come to this position: Although it is imperative to raise income, and although it is imperative—with all deference to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—to pay taxation to pay for the War, we must ask what is to be the minimum liable to Income Tax? I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might take two different points into consideration. Take the minimum level as it applies to a single individual, an unmarried young man or an unmarried young woman, and then differentiate that case from the case of a married person. If the Committee will only look at the pre-war conditions and at the pre-war prices, they would agree that a 25s. limit before the War was really too low a level to be the minimum level out of which Income Tax should be taken, and that even for the single man or single woman it ought to be raised somewhat, if not to the whole level of £250 per annum. I do not know a case which I think ought to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than the case of the man and his wife. An addition of £25 is not nearly enough in present conditions to be added to the minimum of£130 per year. When his first dependant comes upon him in the shape of his wife, a young man is no longer able to live as a lodger. He has to acquire a home of his own and incur great additional expenditure, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot extend the minimum to the whole figure he might at any rate extend it somewhat, if only a little, in the case of the single man and the single women, yet considerably larger in the case of the wife, as it is in that case that there is the greatest hardship.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already done what the hon. Member asks. I have doubled the wife's allowance.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I apologise, but I was called out for five minutes and did not hear that.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was done last night.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The only other point which I wish to raise is the first dependant. The allowance for the first dependant ought to be increased, not a great deal more in present circumstances, but it is the first dependant which causes the greatest strain to a man. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the increase for the allowance for wives of£50, but I have written to him on the subject before, and I would urge that to that extent there should be somewhat of an increase, and that that should be supplemented by somewhat larger addition for the first dependant afterward.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: Some of the discussion that has taken place on this Motion has been from a false standpoint. It seems to be assumed that this is a special piece of pleading for the working man, and for him in particular. As I understand, it is a special piece of pleading for all those who unfortunately happen to have small incomes, and only in so far as the workman is in that position is anything asked for him in this respect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech which he made on this matter—and in the discussions on this Bill one has to recognise the general conciliatory tone adopted by the Chancellor on the various Amendments that have been suggested—referred to the principle that there should not be representation without taxation, and one hon. Member quoted some figures to show that the present position is rather anomalous in that respect, that there were 21,000,000 electors at the last election and that only 3,500,000 paid Income Tax. But the Debate yesterday showed that a large number of those 21,000,000 electors are married women, and that they pay Income Tax through their husbands, because that is the only form in which they are allowed to make contribution so far as direct Income Tax is concerned. Another point which the Chancellor mentioned was that people with low incomes, especially those of the working classes, got other advantages from the State which ought to be seriously considered. One of them which has been mentioned is health insurance. That is rather an unfortunate illustration to give in regard to this matter, because the level of incomes below which a person was entitled to the advantages of the Health Insurance Act was£160 per annum, the figure at

    449
    which the payment of Income Tax began. The Government recently have proposed an Amendment to the Health Insurance Act raising the income level at which a person is entitled to insurance to the figure mentioned in this Amendment. Therefore it is reasonable to argue that if the person whose income is below£250 is considered to have an income sufficiently low to warrant his getting the benefit of health insurance, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Income Tax should not be imposed on incomes below that figure, more especially as it appears that the previous Income Tax limit was taken as the point at which health insurance should cease to operate. In that respect the Government are hardly consistent in the various proposals, so far as this question is concerned.
    What is now sought is by no means a new principle, as might be imagined from some of the speeches. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last touched the exact point in this respect. The whole point is—what figure should a person's income reach before he should be called on to pay Income Tax 1 Having regard to the fact that previous to the War a person must have an income of£160 before being called on to pay Income Tax, and that now the figure is£130, and having regard to the difference in value, I think that it can be shown that there is warrant for the Amendment now before the Committee. But there is another aspect of the case following on the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham in its special relationship to wage earners in various industries. On the different Conciliation Boards and under other procedure adopted for fixing wages the practice has been to fix what are known as minimum wages, wages below which no person can reasonably be expected to meet his obligations in life. What we have to complain of is that the income fixed for Income Tax purposes is actually lower than the minimum wages fixed for some of the lowest grades of labour in the country. That is a position that is hardly logical or consistent. But if 56s. a week is considered to be the lowest wage at which a workman should engage his labour, having regard to his responsibilities, how can it be argued that 50s. a week is a reasonable point to fix for the purposes of Income Tax 1 It is because we feel that the present arrangement bears so hardly on persons with small incomes that we are seeking some adjustment in this respect.
    450
    We recognise as fully as any hon. Member in this House that the difficulty is one affecting not merely those known as the working classes. We are just as much concerned for those people who are living in retirement on pensions and incomes that are very low which they have not been able to adjust as other sections of the community. What we feel is that the point at which Income Tax is levied is far too low, having regard to the responsibilities of these people, and that some alteration should be made in a system which presses so severely on persons with very small incomes.
    Mr. NEAL: I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot somewhat further meet the hon. Members of all classes and sections who feel that some concession is needed in this matter. We have heard from various speakers, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Mr. E. Cecil), the doctrine that taxation and representation are inseparable. I do not know that it is necessary to discuss that abstract proposition, but I do not wish it to be taken that it is universally accepted, because I am rather disposed to feel that in these days, when it is desired to extend the basis of the suffrage to everyone of adult age, it does not necessarily follow that representation and taxation arc alike, particularly in the case of those who have got the female suffrage. But assuming, for the purposes of my argument, that that doctrine is admitted, I would like to point out that the Income Tax is not the only tax, and that it is a form of direct taxation which most of us would welcome if it took the form of a single tax. But is it conceivable that there is any substantial body of persons in this country who do not contribute to Imperial taxation through indirect taxation? Income Tax is graduated. That is intended to put the smallest burden upon those who are least able to bear a burden. When you come to indirect taxation precisely the opposite happens. The taxes on food, one of which we were discussing last night, bear as heavily, if not more heavily, upon the poor than they do upon those of large means. That is easily demonstrated. Just in proportion to the amount by which the necessaries of life are consumed, so in proportion is the excess burden put upon the poor by indirect taxation. Last night we had a discussion upon

    451
    sugar. I have worked out some figures, and though they are not to be taken as arithmetically correct, I believe them to be substantially correct. The Sugar Tax imposed to-day comes to 3d. per head per week of the whole population. If that be anything like accurate, and I think it is, if you take the average family of five, the Sugar Tax is an impost of Is. 3d. per week on the workman's family, which is a very substantial sum per year. If you add to that the taxes on tea, tobacco, and beer, it will be seen that the workman is paying in indirect taxation already, as I conceive it, far too great a proportion of the taxation of this country, and I hope that the Royal Commission that is now sitting will be able to come to something like a clear and definite conclusion as to what is the incidence of taxation of the indirect taxpayer as compared with the direct taxpayer.
    6.0 p.m.
    It is no use trying to found an argument upon the fact that everyone ought to contribute to taxation, or, while you have in existence indirect taxation, to use that argument in support of the view that they should also pay direct taxation. There is another view that I should like to press, and that is this, that this direct taxation of the working man is somewhat new, and that it is telling adversely upon productivity. Anyone familiar with working men will know, whether it be right or not that it should be so, that there is a great volume of opinion amongst working men that they will not earn such a sum as will bring them within the Income Tax paying limit, I can say at once that, logically, it is unsound, that it is uneconomical, and that they ought to be taught better; but the feeling is there, and the fact is that in these days, when it is desired to increase effort and productivity, this tax is telling in exactly the opposite direction and retarding the reconstruction of the nation. Some of my lion. Friends spoke on behalf of persons, not of the manual-labour class, who have fixed incomes which has not increased, and one of them presumed to say that they were all perfectly willing to pay Income Tax. My credulity is large, but not large enough to accept that. If there is a class of persons in this country who are asking for a relief from taxation at this moment it is the class of person whose income is fixed, with an income
    452
    which is incapable of being raised, and who are finding themselves reduced to one-half the spending power that they had before the War.
    I would like also to point out, once again, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, logically or illogically, the removal of the Excess Profits Duty to the extent by which it is removed in this Budget, at the same time that this Income Tax is being maintained, is causing difficulties and unrest, and is tending to reduce production. I shall be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to make some further concession upon this matter. I do not know whether it is possible to hope for that. I do not suppose that anyone who supports this Amendment is wedded to the precise figure of£250. I believe there is a great volume of opinion in this House in favour of some concession, and if the right hon. Gentleman, who has displayed such courtesy and such sympathy throughout these discussions, could see his way to-meet this proposal by some intermediate figure, I do not think the Exchequer in the long run would be the loser, because it would tend to get the people back hard at work and would tell them what it is most important they should be told, namely, that the Government of the country is not out to help the rich as against the poor. I do not believe for one moment that it is; I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire to put the smallest burden upon the poor. But this tax does impose that burden. To tax people upon an income which is equal only to something like 25s. or 3s. of pre-war value is putting a hardship upon them. The hardship is not on the man; it is on the wife. [Some dissent.] I will make good what I am saying, for myself at any rate. What it does mean is a reduced power of saving, and a reduced power of spending. It does not mean any reduction anywhere else; but when you get down to the homes of the poor, it is not a question of what the balance-sheet is at the end of the year, or the banking account, but whether the children shall have an extra pair of boots, or whether there is a possibility of a new hat at the proper time. When you come to the purchases by the wives in their homes—the wife who gets the same money from her husband week by week—I venture to say it is a question of hardship, and if I understand anything of the

    453
    elements of taxation it should not involve hardship. It should be so arranged that it is a call upon, the excesses, upon the power to expend in luxury. When you are touching, as you do, the actual necessaries of life, I make bold to say that there is the greatest difference between the taxation which we, the ordinary Members, face, and the taxation which the poor have to pay directly and indirectly. I should be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman could sec his way to make a little further concession. The right hon. Gentleman has been explaining that the concession he has already made, for which I thank him, will remove some hardship. It will also take away some of his taxation. This form of taxation is an expensive form of taxation, and relatively costs more to collect. If he can see his way to meet this proposal at, say, the sum of£200, I believe it would create a magnificent feeling throughout the country, and would do a good deal to show the ordinary person that the cause of the poor man is not neglected in this House.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have to finish this Debate to-night, and the time available to us before eleven o'clock is shortened by the Motion of which notice was given earlier in the day. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will help us to get on with the discussion, and I am going to try to do something in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for East Birmingham, speaking in ignorance of what I had already promised in respect of the wife, said lie thought, first, that from the point of view of marriage there ought to be an increased allowance for the wife—that I have already agreed to—and, secondly, that relief given at a flat rate per child should be of greater value than it is for the first child. Illustrate the same point in another way. When we fixed the separation allowance payable in respect of soldiers' children, the rate was fixed at 10s. 6d. for the first child, 8s. for the second, and so on in a descending scale. I have had the opportunity of some conversation with the right hon. Member for West Fife, who raised the same question, and I am prepared—I hope the Committee will accept this as a final concession for this year, and not press mo further at the present time—I am prepared to increase the allowance for the first child from£25 to£40. The allowance for subsequent children is to be £25, as it now stands. I have some reason to hope that the Member
    454
    for West Fife will think I have met him fairly. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Birmingham will think so too. I hope the hon. Member and others, who have spoken very kindly of the way in which I have been conducting the Bill under difficult circumstances, will also feel that I have met them in a reasonable spirit.
    Mr. ADAMSON: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, I was anxious that he should raise the abatement for the child to£50, as well as the abatement for the wife. He has explained to me that it is impossible for him to agree to that, but he has promised that he will make a substantial increase in the abatement for the first child to£10. That concession is fairly substantial; it would have been more substantial if the limit had been£50. We will have to be satisfied with the concession we have got.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) will take my offer and wait for the Report of the Royal Commission for anything further.
    Mr. ADAMSON: We have pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer as far as we can on the present occasion, and it would perhaps be well to get on with the other new Clauses still to be discussed.
    Mr. ARNOLD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the. concession oil doubling the abatement in regard to the wife, and now this concession in regard to the first child. I am still of the opinion that these two changes really strengthen the argument for this now Clause. At the same time I do not wish to detain the Committee, and, with permission, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Penistone has a further Amendment on the Paper that has been debated several times, but he should have a chance of moving it to see whether it is accepted at the present stage.

    NEW CLAUSE. —(Increase of Belief from Income Tax in Respect of Wife.)
    Fifty pounds shall be substituted for twenty-five pounds in Section thirteen of the Income Tax Act. 1918, as the amount upon which relief shall be granted in respect of a wife under that Section—[Mr. Arnold.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. ARNOLD: I beg to move,
    " That the Clause be read a second time"
    It is not necessary for me to say anything except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that he will accept this new Clause. There are two of the classes of persons who should also come under that Section—the female relative of a widow or of a deceased wife who has care of the children, and the relative who may be incapacitated by illness or old age. There are not very many of these persons. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not give the increased abatement to all three classes. If so, I will move to delete the words "in respect of a wife," and then the abatement of£50 will apply to all the persons as the£25 does now. It would be interesting to know what this concession is estimated to cost the revenue.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have already handed in a new Clause which seeks to give the housekeeper the same advantage as is being given to the wife. The present position imposes' hardship on a number of persons, and more particularly on men who are on in years and who have 'had the misfortune to lose their wives, and who perhaps get one of the daughters to act as housekeeper, but who have no young children. They are debarred from this abatement. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that case.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the Committee will be content to accept the Clause as it is on the Paper and allow me to bring up any Amendments for the extension of it which I may be ready to accept on the Report stage. I would like to consider the words. As regards the point raised by the right hon. Member for West Fife, where it is a case of a widower with a housekeeper looking after his children, I think the increased abatement ought to foe given the same as for the wife. That is as far as I am prepared to go.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A sister!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of relationship to the person but the reason why that person is there. I hope that this Clause will not be made a stepping off place for pressing me for still further concessions. At any rate, I am not prepared to go beyond the pledge I gave. The right hon. Member for West Fife put me another question, and I
    456
    should like time to consider it. It is only fair to him to say that in the consideration I have given, the matter so far I do not see my way to accept it. There is a class of case, such as I suppose he has particularly in mind, in which all of us would be glad if we could device a form of words and machinery which would exclude another class of persons it is not desired to include There was talk last night in the Debate of a penalty on marriage, but I do not want to set up a new premium for the other. That is the difficulty which the hon. Member's Amendment would lay us open to. The hon. Member who moved asked for an estimate of the concession. I cannot give him a complete estimate including the last concession I made, but I will give him some figures which will probably be sufficient. The cost of increasing the wife allowance from£25 to£50 is estimated at£1,600,000, and in a full year£3,100,000. The extension of the children's age for relief from sixteen to eighteen is£70,000 for this year and£150,000 for a full year. The cost of the granting of a£25 allowance to an unmarried son or daughter supporting their widowed mother is£50,000 this year and£100,000 in a full year. That make 6 a total of£1,700,000 for this year and£3,300,000 for a full year. Something will have to be added for the concession as to the eldest child, but I have been rash enough to promise it without knowing what is was going to cost.
    Mr. ADAMSON: As the Chancellor has promised to consider the terms of my new Clause between now and Report, I do not propose to press it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE. —(Charity Lands to be Assessable under Schedule D.)
    The trustees for charitable purposes occupying lands used for the playing of cricket, football, or other games or athletic sports, rifle ranges, or drill, where no gate money is charged for admission to the ground, may elect to be assessed and charged under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and in accordance with the provisions and rules applicable there to, instead of under Schedule B, in the same way as if the lands were occupied for the purposes of husbandry only. —[Mr. Rawlinson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause refers to the position of a society which lets out land for cricket or

    457
    football at a small rent to a class of people not able to pay the full market value. The result of that is that the grounds are able more or less to pay their way and no more than that. The incidence of taxation on such grounds has now become very serious indeed. If these open spaces were used for the purpose of farming or husbandry the occupiers of those spaces would have the option of being taxed under Schedule D instead of Schedule B. At present they have to pay a tax on the annual value of the land as it stands and are not being taxed on the amount they make from the use of that particular land. My Clause refers purely to grounds which are used for charitable purposes and where no gate money is charged for admission, and I ask that under those circumstances they should have the same privilege as farmers in the method of assessment. There is, for instance, a case of a society which lets its land at a nominal rent, while the society has to pay all rates and taxes. The ground is assessed very highly because it has a potential building value. The society could possibly have turned it into a football ground and charged gate money and made a certain amount in that way. In addition to the assessment now in that case there is the tenant's Income Tax of 6s. in the and the landlord's Income Tax, and there are rates which come up to 5s. or 6s. or 7s. in the, so that really what is a useful and public-spirited work on the part of the society involves them in charges representing almost the full value of the land, and, consequently, the ground will have to be closed up or the money raised by subscription. From this point of view I submit that this is a very reasonable proposition. You want these open spaces near London for cricket and football grounds. If private enterprise does not provide them there will be an outcry for the county council to do so, and that will cost the country far more. If you do not give them the same privilege as you give to the farmer, they will have to close down various grounds, since otherwise they will have no chance of surviving. This matter was brought up last year, but to-night I am putting it in an exceedingly narrow form and confining it strictly to charities, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry I cannot accept this Clause. He proposes
    458
    to apply to certain lands which are avowedly not worked for profit a method of assessment which is dependent on the profits earned. There is something topsyturvy about that. What happens is that these lands are assessed on the single annual value. They are used for a restricted class who do, and can, pay something. I think my hon. Friend would find that if I accepted this Amendment a much wider extension would be given to it than he himself contemplates. In any case, as long as these grounds are not open to the public for the purposes of play, I do not think I can give them the exemption which is confined to those which are open to the public.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I submit, with great respect, that you could not possibly have cricket and tennis grounds entirely open to the public. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot help me at all, because there is a very genuine grievance, and even if it were extended, as the right hon. Gentleman says it might be, no particular harm would be done, because if it were extended to fields that were let for profit, the profit would be returned to the Exchequer under Schedule D. I press the Chancellor of the Exchequer very strongly to see if he cannot meet us in some way before these grounds are shut up, as they undoubtedly will be otherwise.
    Sir J. D. REES:. I wish to associate myself with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I do not think it is necessary to do more, because this was fully discussed last year. I adopt all the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, and also add that the county of Nottingham, which is famous for good cricketing, is extremely interested in this matter, and will be very grateful if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can sec his way to do something for us.
    Commander DAWES: I want to add a word to support the new Clause, because it very largely affects a constituency such as the one I represent. In the borough of Southwark, of which I am one of the Members," we have not a single park. We have a churchyard or two and a, recreation ground, and we are therefore driven out to the playing fields to which reference has been made. I would like to add to what the right hon. Gentleman said, that although these people are able to pay a little for the ground, I, as an original member of the London Playing Fields Society,

    459
    know that no profit of any description is made, and also that it does relieve the open spaces which are nearer in. The Mover of the Clause has told us that very likely the London Playing Fields Society will have to close down. They have done admirable work, and provided a very large number of open spaces, which are in effect open to the public, because there is no charge made for admission. I have myself played on these grounds, and any persons who behave themselves reasonably are able to get into the grounds without charge. The State is subsidising housing to a certain extent, and I would suggest that it is equally necessary for the young people of London to get out to these playing fields and have somewhere to play. I do not know whether the House realises the importance of this question in the poorer districts, especially having regard to the present high railway fares, and, on the analogy of the housing question, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to make some slight concession at any rate.
    Question put, and negatived

    NEW CLAUSE—(General Ride for Estimating the Annual Value of Certain Charity Lands.)
    In estimating the annual value for Income Tax of lands occupied by trustees for charitable purposes occupying lands used for the playing of cricket, football, or other games or athletic sports, rifle ranges, or drill, where no gate-money is charged for admission to the ground, the annual value of the land shall not exceed the annual value of the land for purposes of agriculture.—[Mr. Rawlinson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. RAWLINSON:I beg to move,
    " That the Clause be read a second time."
    When you estimate the annual value of these lands for the purposes of Income Tax, I want it to be taken as not exceeding the value of land for the purposes of agriculture. As it is now they can be rated for a purpose for which they are never used, namely, for letting, say, for big football matches. The Clause simply is that when you assess for the purpose of Income Tax you should take the land as it stands for what it is used for at that particular moment. I submit that, although the Chancellor could not meet us on the last Clause, he may be able to remedy this injustice, which exists in very many cases, that land which is never intended to be used for letting for gate-money purposes is assessed as though it were so used.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the new point in this Clause is that it gives rather less relief than would have been obtained in the other case brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend. He desires to set up a new system of his own for ascertaining annual values to meet this particular case, and for this special purpose, and to restrict the assessing authority to consideration of the agricultural income in the annual value of the land in question. I think what I said in respect to his other proposal is equally applicable to this, and I am very sorry I must still be obstinate.
    Sir J. D. REES: This is really not an invention of my hon. and learned Friend, and now that Peace has come and more time will be devoted again to athletic sports, is it really too much to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to making some little concession here? There is hardly any money concerned, and it is merely a question of doing something for these particular cases.
    Question put, and negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks)—(Road Improvement Grant) —is not in order. It involves a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and could not proceed without a Money Resolution.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 5 of Income Tax Act, 1918.)
    Section five of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be read as if Sub-section (2) of that Section were omitted.—[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."
    This is rather a complicated question, but I will endeavour to explain it as well as I can. The Income Tax Act of 1918, as the Committee know, consolidated the various Income Tax Acts which had been passed previously to that date, and Section 5, Sub-section (2), says:
    "Where an assessment to Income Tax has become final and conclusive for the purposes of Income Tax for any year, the assessment shall also be final and conclusive in estimating total income from all sources for the purposes of Super-tax for the following year, and no allowance or adjustment of liability on the ground of diminution of income or loss shall be taken into account in estimating the total income from all sources, unless that allowance or adjustment has been previously made in respect of Income Tax on an application under the special provisions of this Act relating thereto."
    I cannot say when that provision was introduced. My recollection is that it was

    461
    introduced about five or six years ago. The effect of it is this. I will take a concrete ease, and we will suppose that A, who has money on deposit or who has money invested in securities on which the Income Tax is not deducted at the source has to make a return of that income in May, 1918. In May, 1918, he makes a return of the interest received on money deposited at his bank for the year ended 6th April, 1918. We will say, for the sake of argument, that that income is£500. That sum is sent to the Inland Revenue, and they accept that as the amount of the income arising from this source for the year ended 5th April, 1918. In January, 1919, he pays tax upon that amount of£500. In May, 1919, he has to make his return for the Super-tax. In doing that, he takes his various amounts which make up his income and he turns to the amount which he has received as income from money on deposit at the bank for the year ended 5th April, 1919. That is the time at which he has to make his return for the purposes of Super-tax. He finds that for the year ended 5th April, 1919, he has had no income from interest at the bank. He has, perhaps, invested it in various War Loans at the suggestion of the Government, but he has got to return, for the purposes of Super-tax, not the income which he has received from that source, which is nothing, but the income which he received for the year ended 5th April, 1918, which, as I have already said, was£500. Therefore, the result is that he has to pay Super-tax on an income which he has never received, and which he never will receive. That seems to me to be a very unfair provision. It is a provision which is quite unnecessary) and it is, I think, a provision which ought not to be maintained. It is rather a technical point. I do not know whether I have made the Committee understand it, but I had an interview with the authorities at the Inland Revenue, and I made them understand at once, and they confirmed my view that that is the law as it stands now. It may be said that that is all very well; but, supposing a person realises all his securities and keeps the money on deposit in the bank, the result will be that for one year, at any rate, he will avoid paying Super tax upon anything at all, because the income from interest at the bank for the previous year, or really for two years ago, will have been nothing, and therefore he will return it as nothing, whereas, as a matter of fact, during the year the whole
    462
    of his money has been on deposit in the bank and he has received interest on that. I say that is not a fair way of looking at it. And it is not the right thing to encourage people to realise their securities at the present moment. That is the very last thing—and I speak with some authority on this point—my right hon. Friend would desire people to do. But, even if that is so, it is not right to do something which is an injustice on the plea that, if you do something, later on another injustice may be inflicted on the Government and they will be deprived of Supertax they ought to receive.
    I do not know whether I have made the point clear, but, if 1 have not, and my right lion. Friend will put any question to me, I shall only be too glad to endeavour to make the point clear. What I want to avoid is the injustice of making a man pay a Super-tax upon an income which he has not received. Even hon. Members opposite, I am sure, would not desire that. The injustice would be just the same if the Income Tax were 6d. and there was no Super-tax; but when, as at the present moment, the Income Tax and Super-tax combined are very often 10s. in the, the infliction of such an enormous tax on a person, already highly taxed, on something he has never got, and never will get, is surely wrong. Moreover, it alters the basis upon which the Super-tax is assessed. Super-tax is assessed upon an income for the previous year in every case excepting this one case, and here it is assessed upon an income of two years previously. My right hon. Friend has made some concessions to-day to other quarters of the Committee. Is it unfair to ask him to make some little concession to his own Friends and supporters, and to treat them, at any rate, in something of the same way as he has treated his opponents
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There were moments in my right hon. Friend's speech when I felt convinced that I understood both his Amendment and his case. Then he elaborated it, and I confess clouds of obscurity gathered from time to time, and I am not quite certain that I do understand it. I am not quite certain that my right hon. Friend—if he will permit me to say so—himself understands it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, yes, I do!
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He is dealing with a case where a man changes from an investment, where income is not deducted

    463
    at the source, to an investment where the interest is deducted at the source. What happens? Assessing the Super-tax, according to the law as it stands, the un-taxed interest in the first year is assessed under Schedule D in the second year, and the amount of that assessment is included in the Super-tax return in the third year. I do not see the injustice of that. It is not what my right hon. Friend calls paying tax on money you have not received. It is paying tax on money you received two years before, instead of in the year immediately preceding it. I am not quite sure the boot is not on the other leg. You have had the use of the money for two years before you pay the Super-tax, instead of for one year. There is no double payment of the tax. There is no payment of tax on money you have not received. Assuming that the interest was, as my right hon. Friend put it, £500, and you change it into another investment where you get exactly the same amount—I put it so for simplicity—in the first year you have£500, which, however, was not assessed for Income Tax in that year, and only appear when the Super-tax appears with it. When you change your investment into the new form the second year's income appears in the year in which it is received. Therefore, in year 1, supposing you made a fresh investment, then you would have no interest. It would only appear in year 2. The effect of your changing is that interest for two years appears in one return, but there is no tax on more than your income or on any you have not received.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I will try to convince my right hon. Friend. Let me first point out that a few years ago—I am not sure as to the exact year —
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 1915.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Prior to that date everyone paid Super-tax upon his income of the previous year. That is to say, in May, 1919, you would have paid Super-tax on an income which was reckoned as being your income from April, 1918, to April, 1919. You included in your income the interest you had received, say, £500, from deposit at the bank. Then it was altered, so far as regards interest on deposit, and it was thrown back a year, and supposing this took place in 1914, in the following year, 1915, instead of doing as you did before, and taking your interest from the bank for the year ending April,
    464
    1915, you had to go back to the year ending April, 1914. Therefore, the whole thing was upset, and for no object that I can see whatever, because the fair and proper course was to continue the old system of assessing Super-tax on income you received in a given year. My right hon. Friend says that, suppose you changed your investment, and you invested it in something that would return the same amount, you would not be charged Super-tax on both. I say you would, and that is where we differ.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You would be charged on all you received; you would not be charged on sums you never received.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, you would. That is what I am trying to explain. If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will give my own ease for clearness. In May, 1918, I made a return for Super-tax, and in that return was an income of£500 a year which I received from deposit at the bank. In June, 1918, I drew out my deposit and invested it in securities which gave me the same income of£500 a year. In May, 1919, I made my return for Super-tax for the year ending 5th April, 1919. I had to include in that return£500 a year received from the interest on the investment that I made in June, 1918. I also had to return the£500 which I received as interest from the bank, not in the year 1918–19, because I had not anything in the bank, as I had invested the money, but for the year previously, 1917–18, when I had that money in the bank. Therefore I had to pay Super-tax twice over on a given sum of £500. I put that very question to Mr. Harrison, I think his name is. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury very kindly gave me an introduction to him. I put that sort of question to him, and he admitted I was quite right; he did not question it for a moment. If Mr. Harrison is under the Gallery at the present moment, and my right hon. Friend will ask him, I am sure he will confirm what I have said as being absolutely correct. Under those circumstances, it is very evident you pay a Super-tax on £l,000—that is, the two £500 added together—when, as a matter of fact, you have only received£500. I do want that anomaly altered, and I think it ought to be altered.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that my right hon. Friend's statement of the law as it now is, is wrong.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If my statement of the law is wrong, will my right hon. Friend allow me to withdraw my return, and reduce it by the amount of£600, which I have put in in error, because I have returned my Super-tax on that system?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend says he pays Super-tax on money which he has never received. His return for Super-tax is founded on his assessment for Income Tax. Therefore his assessment for Income Tax must also have included income he never received.
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No; because the system on which the Super-tax is returned is not the same for all sources of income. If it were the same for all sources of income, that would be another thing. I had to declare my income for the year ending 5th April, 1919, so far as regards all my sources of income except one. That source of income, which was derived from money on deposit at the bank, was taken, not for what I did receive in the year ending 5th April, 1919—I received nothing in that year—but for the income I received in the year previously, 1917–18. That, I say, is absolutely unfair.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Committee will agree that this discussion between my right hon. Friend and myself is not very profitable, and I am afraid he must feel the same. I am still in doubt by his last speech as to what he alleges. Does he allege that he paid Super-tax on income that he never received?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At any time; on which he is never liable at any time?
    Sir F. BANBURY: No; but I have already paid it once.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then the right hon. Gentleman alleges that he is paying Super-tax twice over on the same£500?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand that, but I will look into it and perhaps my right hon. Friend will submit his Super-tax return to me quietly at the Treasury where he can get to it more rapidly—[An HON. MEMBER: "May we all do that"]—than we can here. But in no case could I accept my right hon. Friend's Clause. Even if there be a case for
    466
    Amendment it would not have to take the form of this Clause. The right hon. Baronet's Clause would not meet the case in any way, and his proposal would not be a remedy that I could accept under any circumstances. But, on my information, I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can have paid on money he never received or paid twice over on money he did receive.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: It might be convenient if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider this Clause and. bring it up, if necessary, on Report. There is a little difficulty about it, but this is quite certain, that the more it is explained the more difficult it is to understand, 1 would suggest that, without agreeing to accept this particular Amendment, it might be reconsidered on the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that my evidence in explanation has only resulted in making the question more difficult to understand. I am sure it is my fault, though I endeavoured to explain it as clearly as I could. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend—I have already spoken to my right hot). Friend privately on this matter, and I have seen the gentleman whom I thought was the greatest authority in these matters in the United Kingdom, and he certainly agrees with me—that if he will allow me to have an interview with him, possibly in the presence of that particular gentleman, I think I can make the point perfectly clean I do not care particularly about my form of Amendment, so long as I can show that there is an injustice, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see whether or not he can meet it. If he will agree to that, I am willing to withdraw the Clause.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.
    Colonel GREIG: I do not like to intervene, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong. As I understand the case, the interest on the deposit comes into assessment for Super-tax the year but one after it is received. The interest on an investment, being taxed at the source, comes into excess profits for the next year. Therefore both of them fall in the same year, though arising from different years—but there is no double taxing.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is absolutely the case.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I put to my right hon. Friend. The income of the two years in respect of this particular sum falls to be taxed in one year.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: As this matter has come up, I want to draw attention to one aspect to which the right hon. Baronet has not referred. It is perfectly true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that no income is assessed twice under this Clause under Income Tax or Super-tax, but the fact that income for two years from a huge block of capital may be included in a single Super-tax return, may, under these circumstances, affect not only the rate of the Super-tax, but in some cases it may bring a man into the Super-tax level who would not otherwise be assessed for Super-tax at all. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that point in mind when he considers this matter.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 44 of Income Tax Act, 1918.)
    Section forty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be read as if the words "by more than ten per cent." were omitted.—[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."
    Clause 44 was a Clause which was really put in at my suggestion, but not quite in the form that I desired. Clause 44 says:
    "If any individual who has been assessed or charged to tax for any year of assessment as respects which this Section is continued in force by any Act, claims and proves, in manner provided by this Act, that his actual income from all sources for that year is less by more than ten per cent. than the income on which he has been so assessed and charged, he shall be entitled to repayment of such part of any tax paid by him,"
    and so on. That is to say, this is a reversion to the old custom that existed many years ago and was only changed by Mr. Asquith in 1908 or 1909, namely, that where amps; man finds that his actual income is less than the amount for which he is returned for the purpose of Income Tax, that he shall be allowed to pay Income Tax for the amount to which his income has been diminished. The words "ten per cent." have been put in. The result of that is that where a person has a fairly large income that 10 per cent. may mean a very great deduction from his income, and yet he may be unable to get any relief at all.
    468
    Take a particular case. A man has£10,000 a year; he returns his income at £10,000, although, as a matter of fact, his income for the year is only£9,000. He cannot, however, get a reduction on that£9,000 because it is not a decrease of more than 10 per cent. on his income. That seems to me to be very hard in these days, when taxation is something like 10s. in the£Hon. Members forget that, but there are a number of people at the present moment who, for every sovereign they receive, are giving back 10s. to the country, and that quite irrespective of any local taxation, of Death Duties, or anything of the sort. Therefore, I think the 10 per cent. ought to be omitted. It was the law for many years, from, I think, 1844 to 1908 or 1909, when /it was altered by Mr. Asquith. Mr. Asquith's reason was that the majority of people did not know of the Act of 1844, or whatever date it was, and that this provision was rather troublesome to the Exchequer because they kept finding out that there was such an Act. Therefore, he abolished it altogether, and you could not claim any exemption if your income were reduced. Four or five years ago I got a Clause put in, and the justice of my case was admitted, when, I think, Mr. McKenna was Chancellor of the Exchequer, fixing the 10 per cent. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin), who is now in charge, has been left in charge with instructions that he is not merely to reply to this proposal by saying he opposes it.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The hon. Baronet has made such a singularly lucid explanation of this Clause that I have been able to understand it from the beginning to the end, although I am afraid that my instructions will not be satisfactory to him if I carry them out.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Do not carry them out, then.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Of course, my right hon. Friend was successful in getting this Clause inserted, but 1 do not think that the reason why he got it accepted by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to go back on what had been done in 1908, or that he was convinced by the eloquence of my right hon. Friend. I think he owed the acceptance of the Clause to the fact that we were at war and that, under Clause 43 and Clause 50 of the Income Tax Act, it was a concession given

    469
    to the taxpayer in view of the fluctuations to which incomes of all kind are subject at such time as the present. My own impression is—I do not know whether I am right—that the whole of this little group of Clauses under the Income Tax Act, which give special concessions to the taxpayer in regard to fluctuating incomes, will very soon be swept away again. But with regard to the 10 per cent. to which the hon. Baronet alludes, I do not quite agree with him that there is any hardship there. The concession given in the Clause is a very substantial one, and I really think that some small percentage is necessary to protect revenue authorities against an enormous number of trifling claims that might be made. If it were not for this restriction, it would be open to anybody who was in error to the extent of a three penny-bit to have all his case examined, with the necessary correspondence entailed, and with the mass of detail that would follow on any work of this kind, and 1 am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not consent to make this 10 per cent. into a less figure, even to please the right hon. Baronet who is moving the insertion of this Clause. Considering that the 10 per cent. has lasted since the introduction of the Clause, and as its introduction was a concession, and having regard to what I believe to be a fact—that this and all these concessions arc of a very temporary nature—I hope ho will not press it any more.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree that there ought to be some protection in order to avoid absurd claims for rebate, though I do not think that very many people would make absurd claims in this direction. If I might make a suggestion to my hon. Friend, it would be that he should, on the Report stage, substitute "5 per cent." for "10 per cent." If he will do that, I shall bevery pleased to withdraw my new Clause. May I ask him for some little consideration on that point?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think consideration was given when the 10 per cent. was inserted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: At that time, as far as my recollection goes, the tax was not so high as it is now. Now a man has to pay 10s. for every sovereign he receives, and the 10s. which he has left is, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, worth only about 5s. So that practically that man is left with only 5s. out of every sovereign that he receives; 10s. is taken by the
    470
    State, and the other 10s. is only worth 5s. In addition, he has to pay all the indirect taxation and all the increased costs which have arisen. Therefore, although 10 per cent. might have been a proper sum at that time, now that taxation has increased so much there should be some alteration in the amount. If my hon. Friend will tell me he will consider it—and we might discuss it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we have the interview which I understand he is going to give me—if he will do that I shall be pleased to withdraw the Clause.
    Mr. BALDWIN: If the right hon. Baronet invites me, I shall be very pleased to discuss the matter with him.
    Question put, and negatived.
    NEW CLAUSES (Exclusion from Computation of Property Passing at Death of Capital Sums Payable under Certain Insurance Policies) and (Super-tax).
    Major COURTHOPE: The subject-matter of the two Clauses standing in my name was very fully and sympathetically discussed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the deputation only last week, and I shall not trouble the Committee or the Chancellor of the Exchequer by repeating the arguments. I therefore do not move.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 35 of Finance Act, 1894, 57 and 58 Vic, c. 30.)
    Section thirty-five of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read as if in Sub-sections (a) and (b) thereof, in lieu of tin; words "one-eighth" and "one-sixth," were respectively inserted the words "one-sixth" and "one-fourth." —[Mr. Cautley.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause, if passed, would have the effect of giving what I venture to think is well-deserved relief to the taxpayer under Schedule A. As the Committee will be aware, in the assessment for Property Tax under Schedule A certain, statutory deductions are allowed, namely, in the case of Land, including houses, one-eighth of the annual value, and in the case of houses, shops, and all that sort of property, one-sixth of the annual value. Those deductions were fixed by Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1894. That was a rough and ready way of arriving at the assessment under Schedule A. It never purported to be exact. When the Income Tax was only a small amount in the£, the grievances

    471
    suffered by the taxpayer were not very large, and as a working rule it was not a bad one. I object on principle to the rule itself, but I am not here asking that the rule should be altered. My own view is that the property-owner should be dealt with in exactly the same way for Income Tax purposes as the owner of a business, and should really be assessed under Schedule D—that is to say, he should be taxed on the net income he derives from the property. That would have the effect of encouraging landowners and property-owners to keep up their property, and, further, they would not be unduly and unfairly taxed, as they are under the present system. The better the landlord, and the more he spends on his property, the harder is the tax-gatherer on him; whereas, the worse the landlord and the less he spends on his property, the less does he suffer at the tax-gatherer's hands. [have not, however, sought to alter the basis on which Schedule A is collected, though I would urge the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to consider whether he could not put this question before the Commission that is now sitting. The State and the public would very much gain if the system were altered.
    Assuming, however, as I do, that this rough and ready method is to continue, it is obvious that what in 1894 was a fair amount to allow for repairs must be hopelessly and entirely wrong now. Everybody will agree that the cost of all building operations, of all repairs to property, has increased since that time by at least 100 per cent. I say that it has increased by 150 per cent.; that is to say—and I think every Member of the House who is acquainted with any operations connected with building will bear me out—that the cost of all building operations to-day is two-and-a-half times what it was in 1894. If that is so, the suggestion contained in my Clause is too modest, because a reasonably good landlord would spend, and indeed, any landlord would really have to spend, that sum on maintaining his property in a condition to enable him to receive the annual rental value. If that is so, the deduction ought to be multiplied two-and-a-half times, which would make the figures five-twelfths and five-sixteenths respectively, whereas I am only asking that they shall be reduced to one-fourth and one-sixth. That would give some relief to the taxpayer. It would cause the tax to be paid with greater alacrity,
    472
    there would be less desire to shirk or to cheat the Government, and there would not be that feeling prevalent, which is so detrimental to the collection of the tax, that the taxpayer under Schedule A is being unfairly dealt with. I am very loth, whenever I address the House, to put for ward my own experience, but in this particular case I think it is rather to the point. Shortly after I left the university I decided to build some workmen's houses that would be, not of a model kind, but a little in advance of the standard then prevailing. I built them, and I think I may say, without boasting, that they have been fairly well maintained; at any rate, I have not had a house empty. They are in a very large city; but I tell the Committee that, from the time those houses were built until now, I have been robbed every year by the tax-collector. Those houses were built with the intention of securing a 5 per cent. return for the money, and no more. They have been administered and looked after on proper business lines, but the result has been that, taking them all together—there are fifty of them—there has not been one year in which I have not paid more Income Tax than the income I received from them. That is, I venture to say, in itself a condemnation of the present system. The advantage to the State and the public would be that there would be more inducement to the owners, both of small and large property, because they are all on the same footing, to keep their property up to the mark and to spend money in annual repairs, and the tenant would gain enormously.
    The proposition that I am making is by no means new. Those who have taken an interest in these matters of taxation will be aware that this question was dealt with so far as it affects very small houses, and there was a provision under which the owner of a very small house can get back what he spends, over an average of five years, over and above the figures of one-eighth and one-sixth. That is all very well so far as it affects large estates, where you have a skilled agent who can keep the account necessary, and where a return spread over the whole period can be made and sent in to the taxing authorities. But in Yorkshire particularly, where a large bulk of the small property is held in small lots, that is quite illusory, and it is quite useless to the property owners. They do not get

    473
    back this return, but are compelled, as in my own case, to pay the annual amount of the tax—that is to say, an amount which is greater than they ever received. I do ask the Financial Secretary to give consideration to this act of justice which I am asking for a large class. We are now particularly interested in the erection of houses for working people. I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the concession that was given under the Acts of 1910 and 1914 is limited to houses of£12 a year only in rateable value. That is quite useless now, because there is no house in the future, practically speaking, that will not be worth more than 12 a year. I do not think that this small concession which I am asking would cost a large sum of money, while there would be a great gain, in that the feeling of injustice on the part of the owners of this class of property would be removed, and there would also be a gain because more money would be likely to be put into the repairs of the property.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry that I did not hear a great deal of my hon. Friend's speech. I regret I cannot accept his Clause, but I am ready to try and meet him to some extent between now and the Report stage. What I think I can do will be to put down something—I will put it on paper for the hon. Gentleman to see—to the effect that the houses to which Rule 8 of No. V. of Schedule A refers shall be any houses the value of which as adopted under Schedule A does not exceed the limits of the Rent Restriction Act—that is to say, to, work it out on the higher figure on an average of years.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I am much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has said, but the objection to what, as I understand, he wishes to propose is the difficulty of providing the machinery to get the Income Tax returned. It he could see his way to allow the reduction to be made from houses up to a certain class I would welcome that. The small property owners have not the machinery nor the ability to get back the money by that means of which large estates can avail themselves.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to do something if I can to meet the hard cases put forward by my hon. Friend, provided that the repairs are executed, and where the matter is not sufficiently provided for by the present law. They would have to put by for repairs, circumstances of
    474
    labour, and so forth, so as to make these repairs possible. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want me to give relief in. respect of repairs which are merely to be treated as additional income by the recipient, and not used for the purpose for which it is given.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman had heard what I had to say he would have found that I had argued on that line. So far as I am concerned I leave the matter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can, and so far as he can, on Report to meet these cases.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause on the Paper in the name of the lion. Member for Finchley (Major Newman) [Deduction of Income Tax from. Weekly Wage Earners] involves a charge upon the employer, and I am afraid is, therefore, out of order.
    Major NEWMAN: On a point of Order. How does it involve a charge upon the employer?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member suggests that the taxes of the weekly wage earner should be paid by the employer. He then goes on to say that the employers, under certain conditions, may take it from the wages. But the man may disappear, and his employer would be liable to the tax. Under these circumstances, I think it involves a, charge.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, s. 86 (part-Year Motor Car Licences.))
    In the case of excise licences for motor cars granted after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or in any subsequent year, the proportional part of the duty upon payment of which the licence may be granted shall be such sum as bears to the full amount of the duty the same proportion as the period for which the licence will be in force bears to a whole year.—[Colonel Gretton.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    My Amendment is one which proposes to remove a grievance in respect of the licences on motor cars, which vary according to the size and assessment of the car. Whatever the period of the year the licence is taken out, with one exception the full charge for the year is made. I understand that only half a year is

    475
    charged if the licence is taken out on 1st October. Clearly if a new licence is taken out for a motor car for less than a year it is not fair to charge the whole year. It is really not a matter of very great difficulty, and I venture to bring it to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ask him to make a concession upon this subject. I am strongly of opinion that these grievances and inequalities of taxation are not in the public interest. Grievances and irritation in connection with tax law are a mistake. I hold no brief for the exact wording of this Clause. I do not press the Amendment if the Chancellor is not prepared to accept it, but I venture to raise it briefly, and ask him to consider what can be done.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The point, I think, was settled by my predecessor in relation to another matter, and I regret to say I am unable to accept the new Clause. At the present time, as my hon. and gallant Friend has rightly said, if a car is not used until after 1st October, only the half-year is charged. The purpose of ray hon. and gallant Friend is to secure for whatever period it may be a charge proportionate to that period. I think that would possibly lead to some owners of more than one car not taking out their licences during the worst period of the year, and only employing them in the better months in what may be called "joy rides." These licences are taken out almost entirely through the Post Office, and the time required to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would add to the difficulties of administration. After all, the Motor Car Tax comes under the head of a luxury tax, and I do not think there is great cause for hardship.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have no love for this particular form of words, and I hope my right hon. Friend will still give this matter some further consideration.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Import Duties on Cinematograph films.)
    It is hereby declared that the new import duties on cinematograph films shall not apply to negative films brought into the United Kingdom where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or where the importer makes a declaration that such film contains only exposures of scenes which are intended to form part of a production of which the other scenes have been or are to be exposed in the United Kingdom. Provided, however, that if the blank film used outside the United
    476
    Kingdom was not previously obtained from the United Kingdom the duty at the rate appropriate to the blank film shall be charged, levied, or/and paid as though such film were being imported.—[Mr. Newbould,]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I beg to move,
    " That the Clause be read a second time."
    I believe this Clause has only to be understood to commend itself to all sections of the House, it may be necessary for me to make some few explanatory remarks before I come to the direct law of the Clause, it is generally understood, or believed, at the present time that the cinema industry in this country is in a very flourishing condition. That is not in any sense true; but the popularity of the cinema is great, and much greater than at any time, and the attendance probably is very much greater than it has ever been. The Committee will realise that during the five years of war there has been no development of any sort in the industry. Manufacturing film places have been closed down, and we are five years behind other countries, and our largest competitor, America, in the development of productions. The British producer wishing to take scenes in France or anywhere in its natural setting provided by the scenery sends his company, the producer, his camera men, and so on, to Italy, or France, as the case may be, to film the scene. The finished total may only be 5,000 feet. He requires 1,000 feet taken in France in the natural setting and surroundings of the story. He sends his company to secure that 1,000 feet, and he has to expose anything up to 10,000 or 12,000 feet. The thing is brought back to this country. It is edited in the studio. It is put together with the other 4,000 feet taken in this country When the producer brings that film back from France he pays 5d. per foot duty on the total length of it, although, in fact, he is only going to use 2,000 or 1,000 feet of it.
    First of all I contend that this is not really an import at all. It is part of a British manufactured article. What you are in effect taxing is foreign scenery, or if you are not taxing that foreign, scenery, or some particular spot in France, in Paris or Rome, then you are endeavouring to tax the sun because of the light which enables you to take the film. I am surprised, I must say, that my right hon. Friend has not accepted this Clause, which seems to me such an act of

    477
    justice that it has only to be understood to be accepted without any discussion whatever. I do not desire to prolong the discussion if I could get some announcement from the Chancellor that he has favourably considered this proposed Clause. I cannot imagine any argument why it should not be accepted. Personally, I am in favour of the abolition of all taxes on imported things. In this country we require films from all the other countries in the world freely imported. The concession I am asking has no relation to taxation. It is merely to allow British manufacturers to produce the whole of a British article without taxation. The position at the present moment is that the British manufacturer has actually to pay two or three times more duty on his finished article than has the foreigner. The whole situation seems to me to beso absurd that I can only believe it is not understood. There is no reason why London should not become the film centre of the world. Owing to the vast influence which it ought to have, we do hope, if the world is to be informed and educated by films, that there should be amongst these films a very large number of British make, so that British ideas and customs shall go all over the world. It is very important indeed that the manufacturer of films should be encouraged in every possible way in this country. Instead of the British manufacturer being helped by the Government in establishing his business he is actually hampered, being placed at a disadvantage with the foreigner. I am not prepared to pay a duty which is not paid to a like extent by my competitors. I would like to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say on this point, and I feel that if hon. Members really understood the importance of it there is no doubt the sympathy of the House would be in favour of this proposal.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member seems to have produced an argument which does not quite fit his own Amendment, and it seems to be a speech which refers to an Amendment which he moved last year rather than the one he is now moving. The Leader of the House last year found himself unable to accept the hon. Member's proposal, and the same objection extends to this proposal. The duties are 5d. a foot on negatives, Id. a foot on positives, and a ⅓d. a foot on blank films. What ho means when he says
    478
    the British manufacturer is taxed more than the foreigner I do not understands The hon. Member proposes that films used in photographic scenes abroad as part of a film of which some part is photographed here should be admitted at a duty of ⅓d. in respect, not on the whole film, but only of any part which is a foreign blank film.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I quite believe this Clause is not understood by the right hon. Gentleman. If the blank film is taken from this country to be exposed in another country it has already paid the ⅓d. It is not manufactured here, but the great majority of it is imported into this country. If you produce the blank stock in the country and you wish to expose it and bring it back here, it should be subject to a ⅓d. per foot, but it is subject to 5d. per foot.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the film is. produced here it has no duty to pay whatever, but if the film is produced elsewhere it pays a ⅓d. per foot. If it is negatived it pays 5d. per foot; but it does not pay twice over. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is that any foreign-produced film developed to the negative stage abroad shall enter at the rate of duty of blank films provided it forms part of the complete film, some of the scenes of which have been produced in this country. Take, for example, "A Tale of Two Cities." Some scenes are produced here used some in Paris. The film made abroad with the scene enacted abroad is to enter as if it were a blank film at the blank film rate, because it is to form part of the film with the scene, for example, at the Central Criminal Court in London. That would be reducing the duty to an absurdity. The hon. Member spoke of British interests and British producers, but that is much wider than his speech, and that was what I meant when I said his speech applied more to his proposal of last year than this one. This Clause would enable you to bring in any film provided only an odd 100 feet of it happened to be a scene in this country, and I could not possibly accept such a proposal, because it would destroy this tax.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: There is still some confusion of thought on this matter. I am a British manufacturer of films and not of film stock or blank film or the raw material on which we print the pictures. I am a manufacturer of pictures. I de

    479
    sire to produce in my studio, for example, A Tale of Two Cities," and I find that some of these scenes have to be taken in France; consequently I send over my actors, as I must do, because I must have the same actors both here and abroad, and I cannot send a part of my company abroad and keep a part of it in this country. I send my company, my producers, and my cameras over to France with negative stock which has already paid the Negative Duty, and I expose that stock in France. Often I have to expose three or four times more than I really require, because when I get it back again I have to edit it and cut out portions which have been taken unnecessarily. I may have taken one scene three or four times, but I only choose one of the scenes, and I destroy the rest. I might bring back some 10,000 feet or 15,000 feet upon which I have already paid£d. per foot, and when I bring it back here I pay 5d. for every foot brought here as duty on a negative film. I have letters in my pocket telling me that the Customs authorities can give me no redress, consequently I have to pay 5d. per foot on 15,000 feet, and when I come to edit it I destroy 10,000 or 12,000 feet and only use the remainder.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is now arguing his second Clause
    Mr. NEWBOULD: My second Clause is intended to save something from the wreck. I sincerely hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that a purely British production and manufacture, because it is exposed under the sun in France and has French scenery in it, should not pay a duty. If he cannot accept it, then it is quite hopeless to expect us to establish or develop the film-producing industry here, because we are paying more duty on 5,000 ft. of film than the foreigner pays on 10,000 ft., and we have to pay on a large amount of film that we do not use. If the right hon. Gentleman insists that the British manufacturer shall pay in this way on a purely British article, it strikes me as being an endeavour to squash an industry to which every encouragement ought to be given.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let mo try and make my position clear. The hon. Member has argued the case for both his Clauses, and it is impossible to deal with his speech without taking the two together as one. He speaks as a manufacturer.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I am not discussing raw stock at all. If it is not made in this country it pays 3d. per foot when it comes in. I am talking about producing and manufacturing the pictures, and not the raw material. My argument has nothing whatever to do with that, and I do not want one. foot of raw stock brought in without paying the ⅓d. duty. I am not at issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was only trying to explain that he and I have been using the term "manufacturer" in a different way. He is not talking as a manufacturer of the film, but as a manufacturer of pictures on a film. The question is, if these films are manufactured abroad, whether they are to be brought in free of duty. I have never heard of any Customs where it was provided that if a citizen of the country which imposed the duty carried on his manufactures elsewhere than in that country his goods should be free from duty, and that is something which finds no place in any Customs tariff in the world. The hon. Member is a British manufacturer in so far as he manufactures within Great Britain, and then he pays no duty on his manufactures; but if he goes abroad to manufacture and then imports what he has manufactured abroad, he pays the same duty as any foreigner who exports from the foreign countries to this country. That, I think, is the only course which it is possible for me to adopt.
    Then the hon. Member, to reinforce his case, dealt with the second Clause on the Paper, and he pleads that he imports a certain part of this material for examination, not knowing whether it will be useful or not, and She has to pay duty on it whether it is used or not. That difficulty can be met without any new Clause, for the Customs authority will give the hon. Member an opportunity of examining these films in bond, and if he likes to destroy them there no duty will be paid. On the other hand, if he Lakes them out of bond the will have to pay the duty. We cannot give the hon. Member carte, blanche to take out of our control a dutiable article, and then to tell us hereafter that he has found so much unusable, and we are only to charge him on the balance, which he uses. In that case we should have no control whatever, and his effective grievance will be met if he will use the bonded facilities which are already provided.
    Sir J. D. REES: It appears to me that one result of this arrangement will be that the hon. Member will have to abandon his Free Trade principles in respect of the importation of these films from foreign countries. I take it that it is the picture that my hon. Friend wants to get exempted.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member wants to exempt all pictures coming from abroad. At present, if they are manufactured abroad they pay 5d. per foot duty. If they are blank films manufactured abroad they pay ⅓d. What is not possible is to have one duty for foreigners who send in the article, and another duty for the British manufacturer who makes the article abroad and brings it here.
    Sir J. D. REES: What I venture to suggest is that what is done abroad in the case under discussion is only a subsidiary part of a process which is carried out chiefly in this country. Take the case which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, "A Tale of Two Cities." What is projected on to this film in a foreign country is a subsidiary part of the picture, and the greater part of it projected upon the film in our own country.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I invite my hon. Friend to read "A Tale of Two Cities" again. If I were to accept my hon. Friend's proposition we might have thousands of feet of film produced abroad and brought in free of duty, simply because a couple of hundred feet are produced in this country.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I point out that the competition between America and this country is keen and progressive, and unless care is taken, the British trade is likely to be entirely squeezed out of existence. Therefore my hon. Friend's Amendment is of far greater importance than would appear to be the case when the amount of money concerned is considered. I did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be induced to look upon this proposal to some extent with a patriotic eye. I would like him to consider that this is a means of advertisement and education which is absolutely unparalleled; it is increasing, and will increase, but there is an intention to corner it and make a trust of it, and to convert it, in fact, into an entirely American enterprise. I am not able, of course, to deal with the technical details of this question like my hon. Friend
    482
    who moved the Clause, and who is really a master of the subject; but I do understand the broad issues concerned, and I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can to favour a British industry, especially as there is really no great amount of revenue affected. My hon. Friend who moved the Clause found himself in a cleft-stick. He was in the unfortunate position of having to take this action while he was a rigid free trader—action which amounted to inviting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a preference in this particular case. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider it from the point of view of the desirability of giving a preference to British producers, and will, therefore, accept this new Clause.
    Mr. JESSON: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a little consideration to this matter. It is a rather complicated question, because there is no other industry which is in the same position. Let me give two parallel cases to explain that position. An English producer wants to produce a film in which the scenes are set in France or Italy. He sends his English company over to France or Italy where the scenes are, and he takes the pictures there. But the film is being produced all the time by a British company. Yet when it comes to this country it has to pay duty like any foreign manufactured film. But take the other case, that of an American firm which does exactly the same thing. It takes an American company to France or Italy, as the case may be, and there produces its film; it is an entirely American production, and yet it pays no more duty than a film which is produced entirely by a British company under exactly the same circumstances. That is a point I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider. Could he not consistently assist a very struggling but very important British industry It is, I admit, a most difficult problem. But I suggest that it is a really British production although the scenes necessary for the picture may have to be taken abroad. At the present time we are trying to encourage the production of films in this country, but the firms doing this work find themselves at a very great disadvantage in face of a huge American combine, and unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to assist this particular struggling British industry, it is going to have a very rought time, and it will be bad for British artists and producers generally.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accuse me of wasting time, but this is a matter of vital importance, and I would like to point out what his decision means. First of all, he is placing a tax on the sun because it shines in France or Italy. He is placing a tax on the scenery of other countries because it is essential in a picture which we make here. He is inviting the British manufacturer to paint scenery in this country, and we know that the only really effective way of making a film a success is to send abroad to get the natural scenery. I may point out that the expense of the producing firm is largely incurred in this country, and it is merely a case of sending the camera and the raw film and company abroad in order to get the essential scenes to make the picture complete. The right hon. Gentleman has invited me, in regard to my second Clause, to carry out the highly skilled and technical operation of editing a film in bond with the facilities therein provided. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to realise what it means to edit a film. It means, perhaps, six people sitting for hours and hours daily for three weeks, going through sections of the film over and over again; and to suggest that such a highly skilled and highly technical operation should be done in bond is to invite us really to throw up all chance whatever of establishing this very important industry in this country. If, in view of the facts I have laid before him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer adheres to his present decision, I can only go from here and say to the British manufacturers of films that it is of no use attempting to carry on in this country, because they are ladened with a burden which the foreign importer is not called upon to bear.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have had a good deal of conversation with people interested in the industry, and I have a suggestion to make. May it not be possible for these films to be edited in this country, without any bond restrictions, and allow the cinematograph industry to pay the licence on the finished article, after the films have been cut down? If this plan were abused, then next year we can revert to the suggestion in the present Budget. T suggest that the plan I put forward would get rid of a great deal of the difficulty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lose his tax, and the foreigner would not enjoy a quite unfair advantage over the British producer.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The suggestion, I understand, is that duty should not be paid on imported films which are not used. I will see if that can be done, but I must be satisfied in some way or other that, in whatever steps are taken, the revenue shall be sufficiently safeguarded against evasion of duty. So far as the Clause itself is concerned, it does not seem to me that it is confined to protecting merely films produced abroad by British companies. It is rather a protection for any film produced abroad, provided that part of the production of which it constitutes a portion is filmed in this country.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Drawback.)
    If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that a new import duty has been paid in respect of cinematograph film negatives, and the importer declares that the whole or any portion of such negative will not be used for the printing of any positives and will be destroyed then, on the production of satisfactory proof or on a declaration by the owner that any such negative and any test positives printed there from have been destroyed, the importer shall be entitled to claim a drawback, and the Commissioners shall pay or repay an amount equal to the duties collected on the portions of the negative film so destroyed.—[Mr. Newbould]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised I hesitate to press this, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that the penalty for a breach of declaration is now£500, with a possibility of imprisonment, a declaration in this case would be a sufficient safeguard.
    Mr. JESSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to receive a deputation of the trade between this and the Report stage, to see if anything can be done to assist in this matter
    Sir J. D. REES: In view of the small amount of revenue which may be lost by abandoning this duty will the right hon. Gentleman kindly consider whether it is of sufficient importance to continue it, bearing in mind the views I have expressed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I cannot understand the attitude taken up by the hon. Member. This is a duty on manufactures carried on abroad. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Jesson), I am afraid I should find great difficulty in receiving a

    485
    deputation before the Report stage, but if the representatives of the trade will place themselves in communication with the Chairman of the Board of Customs, I will give instructions to him to consider, with them, if there is anything that can be done to save producers from paying duty on films not used while sufficiently safeguarding the revenue.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: In the circumstances I will not press this Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from Estate Duty.)
    No estate duty shall be levied upon an estate passing from a deceased husband to his widow. —[Lord Hugh Cecil.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    There is not time to enter at any length into this question which relates to the levying of Estate Duty in a case where an estate passes from husband to his widow. The case is a peculiar one, unlike the ordinary incidence of Death Duties in more respects than one—
    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.

  SIR E. CARSON'S 12th JULY SPEECH.
  Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move,
  "That this House do now adjourn."
  Earlier in the day there appeared upon, the Order Paper questions, the point of which was whether the Prime Minister had had his attention drawn to the speech delivered on Saturday last, near Belfast, by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), and I asked what action the Government proposed to take upon the statements in that speech. I asserted that it incited to breaches of the law, and threatened violence and illegal action in the event of the law being carried out, and I asked whether the Government would give any assurance that action would be taken so as to treat equally all persons affected by the law in this Kingdom. The answer I received from the Leader of the House was:
  "I am advised that there is no ground upon which His Majesty's Government could take action with regard to the speech referred to."
  486
  We are interested to know, of course, what are the technical grounds upon which the Government stand in giving us no more than that answer, but we are more interested to discuss the great issue which has been raised from a level high above technicalities. There are very big considerations raised by the statements of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) which we on this side cannot ignore. I want to speak from three standpoints—the standpoint of how these statements which I have quoted affect the position in Ireland, the standpoint of how they affect our position here in this country, and the standpoint of what is obviously the duty of the Government in relation to the issues which have been raised. We approach with some reluctance what might appear to be a personal attack upon a Member so experienced and so distinguished in this House and in the public service as the right hon. Gentleman, but we are impelled by a sense of public duty and by the very real consequences hingeing upon the statements which have been made, and which the Government has so far ignored, to ask the special attention of the House in this way for a discussion of those matters. The speech contained this statement in reference to any intention to give effect to the Home Rule Act—an Act passed and confirmed by this House, and not yet removed from the Statute Book:
  "I gave you this pledge in the Ulster Hall and I repeat it now once more, that if any attempt to revive it or to put it into force is made I will at once summon the Provisional Government and I will move that we repeal the Home Rule Act, if nobody else does."
  We understand that there is but one Government in the United Kingdom. We are all required to stand equally before it and to be answerable to it. It would appear from those statements that there is still in existence another, brought provisionally into existence by the right hon. Gentleman to meet contingencies which existed a year or two before the War. Is the Government aware of the existence of this Provisional Government? Can they be ignorant of the existence so short a distance across the water of another Government, which a very powerful personality in public affairs in this Kingdom and in this House declares he will invoke and use should any attempt be made to revive the Home Rule Act which rests upon the Statute Book? Further in that speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I tell the British people from this platform here in your presence, and I say it now with all solemnity—I tell them that if there is any,

  487
  attempt made to take away one jot or tittle of your rights as British citizens and the advantages which have been won in this war of freedom, I will call out the Ulster Volunteers."
  I think that entitles us to ask a question as to what knowledge the Government has of the rifles, the ammunition, and the warlike material wherewith alone Volunteers can be of any service. Whatever else we might say of the right hon. Gentleman— I am sorry not to see him in his place— no one of us would consider him lacking in personal courage. For the work which he has undertaken he has all the necessary physical and moral qualities which will be required, and the question which he has raised is this: Can the Government show itself as physically and as morally courageous as the right hon. Gentleman? Are there in existence in Belfast, under the guardianship and protection of trustworthy Ulstermen and Unionists, rifles sufficient to make the Volunteers of service? We have been informed that rifles have been collected, and in some way stowed away in safe custody. The conclusion to which I am driven by these confident statements and emphatic threats of the right hon. Gentleman is that the rifles and ammunition are in the safe custody of his friends in Ulster, and that should the moment arrive when he thinks it advisable to call them out the men will be deliberately armed as Volunteers, fully equipped for warlike purposes, and I think we are entitled to ask what information we can get to reassure this House that should this threat be carried out it cannot be made effective for the want of the necessary munitions, rifles, and armaments to make the volunteers of any service. Whatever may be the political attachment of Members who sit in different parts of the House, I am sure they will agree with me that it is regrettable, at least, that a public man should at this moment lend himself to courses which, whatever our view may be of their merits, are bound, as a matter of certainty, further to encourage, and further to add to the difficulties of the Government of this country. In that regard I am supported by a statement used recently in our Courts by the Public Prosecutor acting on behalf of the Government in connection with a case where a comparatively unknown offender had said something in public which was regarded as highly dangerous to the public interest and as in-
  488
  citing to public disturbance. Sir Arthur Bodkin, the prosecuting counsel, in addressing the Court, said:
  "At a period when there was a great deal of unrest and excitement among the people a speech of the kind he had described was gravely reprehensible. The Defence of the Realm Regulations afforded a speedy way of showing the-defendant and others that while freedom of discussion on all public questions was permissible, a period of unrest was not to be made the occasion for stirring up the prejudices of one class against another by suggesting disorder, violence, and crime."
  If those in our Courts of Law speak in this way as a corrective upon minor wrongdoers because of public statements which they have made in the expression of their views, surely we may expect, at least, some-corresponding repudiation and some similar warning to be given to the more powerful and influential persons whose word is winged not merely throughout every great town in this country, but practically through the Press of other great countries as well. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman feels that his cause is so overwhelming that he is entitled to regard himself as the great exception; that he feels so profoundly and deeply in the justice of his cause that he is entitled to go to any lengths in the use of any language to prevent existing conditions being changed. He knows much more about the law than. I do, but that would not be accepted as a plea in any Court of Law, and it cannot be accepted as a plea in this House. These few men, poor men some of them, perhaps illiterate men, who have been punished by terms of imprisonment of a few weeks varying to terms of five years, feel deeply and fervently in the justice of their cause, and, propelled as they are by a conviction of their own, however wrong they may be, have said these things which have brought them into collision with the law. Whatever our own personal beliefs, however deep and fervent they may be, they must not be used either as a defence or an excuse for such flagrant incitements to violence as are contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I have referred.
  At this moment some 50,000 or more soldiers are in Ireland for the purpose of enforcing the law. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman regards that extreme and costly measure as a proper course. I cannot reconcile his view that the law, as he sees it, should be enforced by military means upon those who think differently from him, and that he himself should be-

  489
  free so to degrade the law and so to belittle the position of Britain in the enforcement of the law as has been indicated in his speech. We cannot consistently require the Army to enforce the law in the case of the majority in Ireland, and then say that the minority, or those who speak for the minority, are entitled, repeatedly, to incite to breaches of the law as clearly as is incited in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This is not an occasion upon which we can enter into a Debate upon the general position of Irish government. I can only say for myself that I am most anxious, as I am sure men of all parties must be anxious, to have a settlement of the Irish trouble, and we who take the self-government point of view include in that view an earnest desire to consider in the fullest and the fairest way the views of those who are in Ulster, and who, at any rate, include or compose a considerable part of the Ulster population. That, however, is not the question. It is the business of the law to secure respect for it, or, if not respect for it, to insist upon obedience. It is the business of the Government so to act in applying the law as to make it rest upon the confidence of all classes, rich and poor, high and low, that they will be equally treated in relation to it.
  This is not a moment when the Leader of the House, or those who are responsible for the forces of government in this country, can thank the right hon. Gentleman for his recent public utterances. At no time was the government of Ireland a more embarrassing and more troublesome problem than at the present moment. Perhaps at no time was the law more generally disregarded and flouted than it Is in Ireland at the present time. That is not to concede my case, but it does not in any way hinder the plea which I make. We on this side of the House have raised no complaint against the enforcement of the law when it has had to be enforced against Nationalist Ireland, and equally we expect to have the encouragement and the support of all sections of the House when we say that the law must be equitably applied to Ulstermen also. The total effect of these statements of the right hon. Gentleman, must surely be further to increase the embarrassment of the Government and further to add to the difficulties of those who are seeking to reconcile the law with Irish opinion, and to see that the Government as it is settled by this House runs consistently and equally to
  490
  every part of Ireland. Next to the effect of this line of conduct upon Ireland there is a very serious effect upon our position here. We have inherited from the War many strange difficulties, and a considerable number of men come back to our country in a disturbed state of mind. Speaking, as I think I can, for my colleagues on this side of the House, I may say that we have appealed to them for patience. We have told them to trust in the justice of this House. We have asked them to believe that by constitutional means and by ordinary, orderly, and electoral methods the grievances, which are felt with the deepest intensity—an intensity as deep as can be entertained by Ulster—can be remedied by action in this House. The answer, when we have made this plea to large masses of workmen, has been, if I may be allowed to use this term, "What did Carson do?" That is the answer, illogical, and in a sense shorn of any real point, but still quite convincing to those who are very glad to have a high example set for them in doing what they propose, and I can assure this House that the statements of the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division are repeatedly quoted in what is called the Extremist Press.
  The extremists make his sayings their motto. They set forth his example as a thing to be followed, because they say, "That is the only course that can be successful. The Government cannot, or dare not, resist the right hon. Gentleman or apply the law to him. Why, therefore, should we bend to the law?
  Why should we depend on any appeal to reason when us has only to resort to force and to threats and he can secure any object that he may have in view?" As the great archapostle of direct action, the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast is frequently held up as the man whose sayings and conduct justify the policy and the methods of those who have been hauled into our Courts in London and are now in jail for saying loss harmful things. You may read the reports of these cases as I have read them only this afternoon, a sheaf of them—I will not trouble to quote one—and you find in them that several of these offenders, having been brought into Court, have in their defence quoted the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division. It is upon his doctrine that they rely. He set the example to be followed by them. The Government cannot fairly and cannot

  491
  honestly prosecute people—illiterate it may be in some cases—for saying things that are repeated time after time from platforms in the North of Ireland by the right hon. Gentleman. The law cannot be respected unless it is applied to rich and poor and weak and strong alike, and the Government must not ride off upon any interpretation of a purely technical or legal character.
  I could show the House by quotations from these different cases that the Courts and the juries who have tried these cases and the men who have had to decide them and impose punishment have had regard not exactly to the technical part of the offence committed by these poor men, but have had regard to the effect of their offence upon the public mind and upon the soldier. And these offenders who are now in jail had no great Press to recite their sayings in the next edition. I suppose that there is not a paper in this country, perhaps not one in America, and in many lands remote from ours, which has not given the substance, if not exactly the words, of these two parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I quoted earlier in my remarks. And the man who stands up in Hyde Park, and whose speeches are taken down only by a shorthand-writer, and would rest secure in the secrecy of the policeman's notebook, is brought before a tribunal in our country because we must uphold the dignity and equality of the law and impose punishment for these minor offences. Now, I can assure the House, from one's knowledge of the effect of these statements upon Labour and upon the public mind, that very serious harm is being done to the whole cause of government and of law and order by this absence of restraint or correction of such statements such as I have already quoted. The Leader of the House, in reply to my question earlier in the day, stated that, according to the advice given to the Government by the Law Officers no action could be taken. Might I ask for the terms of that advice? I do not want a legal opinion without the usual payment, but this is an occasion upon which I am sure the country and the House should be told what are the grounds for failing to act in the one case when action is so common in the other, and the Law Officers should, I think, tell the House fully what are the considerations which weigh with them in
  492
  ignoring these incitements to violence and threats to defy and to break the law— threats to call out the volunteers, threats to use the force of armed men.
  These are things which cannot be laid to the account of those men who are now in jail for speaking upon small platforms in our parks to small numbers of people. After reading these cases I realise, taking the whole of them together, that the harm. done by these men who have been punished with sentences varying from moderate terms of a few weeks' imprisonment to five years' imprisonment is, collectively, considerably less than the harm done by these incitements to illegal action uttered; by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division. We bring this matter forward with real reluctance. We have not sought it. During the whole course of the life of this Government the party with which I am associated has been anxious to give the Government a trial in carrying through and completing the great work of the reconstruction for which this Parliament was elected. How we can hope to" apply our minds to any great domestic problem in face of these divisions which have been caused, in face of the confusion in the minds of the people, and this idea that there is one law for them and another for the rich, is a question which is exceedingly difficult to answer. I want to have at least some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman who is going to speak for the Government that there is going to be equality before the law, and if, before actually violating the law in the sense of committing some physical act, a person threatens to do so, and incites to violence and says that, in the event of certain action being taken by the Government, he will flout the forces of the law, I want to know whether that, in the case of a mighty personage, is to be passed over as so much harmless speechmaking, and, in the case of the poor man, is to be held up as a reprehensible incitement to disorder which must be punished with all the rigours of the law. I repeat that we bring this matter to the notice of the House this evening reluctantly. We would prefer that every minute of our time should be devoted to the great work of reconstruction for which Parliament was elected; but so serious is the issue raised by these speeches that we think that even more harm will be done to the cause of peace and law and order if we ignore what has so plainly

  493
  been declared, and therefore we ask for some reassuring statement from the Government to-night.
  Lieut.-Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: I think the House will believe me when I say that I rise to speak on this question with very great reluctance. I cannot look at it quite from the angle of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. Members like myself are still young Members of the House, but we are old enough to have had a pretty long association with the Ulster Members in this House, and it gives me something like a heartache to have to say what I know is going to hurt, at all events one of the senior members of the Ulster party, for whom I have respect and admiration. I am afraid he will have little affection for me by the time I sit down, but, after all, those personal considerations have to be put aside. I say that 1 would have very much preferred to have kept silence to-night; but if you keep silence to-night, what does it mean? It means this, that you are going to allow the egotism of one man and one community that ought to be purely self-destructive to drag us all into their wreckage, and 1 do not think we are prepared to accept that. The main point, it seems to me, is this: At the one moment when this War has been won and everyone of us should be doing what we can for peace, the right hon. Gentleman who has been attacked to-night is doing all that he can to cart us back into the vortex of war. Perhaps the House will allow me just for a few moments to look back upon the past.
  In 1914 we were on the verge of civil war. Many of us then were very young Members of this House and we were very immature politicians. We thought, and I still think we thought rightly, that the Government had played us a dirty trick in the way they had brought on the Home Rule Bill, and in the actual Home Rule Bill, and we went round the country saying that "Ulster would fight and Ulster would be right." Then we were brought face to face with the reality of the whole situation. We saw what it was going to mean to the entire British Empire—to Australia, to Canada, to ourselves, and to Ireland—and a great many of us, perhaps too late, had to reconsider our opinions. What a great many of us did then was this. We had made speeches to induce other people to go and fight. We did not think we could leave these people, and therefore we volunteered
  494
  to fight for Ulster. Meanwhile we did all that we could do to make a compromise. My Friend Sir Mark Sykes worked as very few men did; and would to God he was with us now ! He had a real power of feeling in him, and he had a real vision, a real intuition of what men must fight for. Before the War the right hon. Gentleman who has been attacked to-night had made a speech in Ulster and had collected a body known as the Ulster Volunteers. Now I hold that that' body was really the uncle of Sinn Fein and the stepmother of trouble all over our Empire, from Egypt to India. After that there came the War. Then Mr. Redmond, I think, did one of the finest things that have been done in history. After forty years of work he and the Irish party, by constitutional methods, had got a Home Rule Bill upon the Statute Book. Mr. Redmond risked all that work; he had the flash of insight as to what this War really meant, and he did what was done by many who threw up everything they had and went straight into the War. Mr. Redmond said, "This War is Ireland's war, because it is a war for freedom." Later on, when history is written, I think you will see that freedom owes a very great debt to Major William Redmond, who died fighting for the Allies, and to Mr. John Redmond, who died fighting for the cause of his own country and the cause of freedom.
  Any man who has any knowledge of what has happened in the last four years must deplore the catastrophe and the accident that occurred to us. No man like myself, who recognises the enormous debt that all this country owes to Lord Kitchener, can bear to say a word against him, but the truth is that Mr. Redmond's offer for recruiting was never fairly received in the War Office; and, again, Mr. Redmond's offer to go on to recruiting platforms with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn was not accepted by that Member. Now what have we got 1 This country, this world is in turmoil, and when the ship of Peace is about to reach harbour you have this speech made by the right hon. Member. The War is not finished yet. It is still going on. When he made this speech, on what lines did he make it? He speaks about the Home Rule Bill which is on the Statute Book. He refers to it, I think, as a putrescent corpse. I am not going to attack the courage of the right hon. Gentleman, because I know he is a brave man, but those are very easy

  495
  words to slip from the lips of a Gentleman who has never known what the smells of the battlefield are like. Then, again, we are told that he speaks in loyalty to the British Empire. What is this loyalty? It is a loyalty of Shylock. During this War many great things have been done, many great passions have been evoked that one never dreamt of. Misers have given their gold. You have pacifists even who have given their blood, widows who have given their only sons; and now, when the War is not yet finished, you have the right hon. Gentleman saying, "We will give nothing at all." What we know in the House is surely this: Ulster is proud and Ulster is rightly proud. Ulster has not been made by England. Ulster has been made by herself. When Ulster takes up this position, "We will simply block the way; we will do nothing at all; you must fight your own difficulties in Canada, Australia, and the United States, and every other place," then, I say, it is time that every man who cares for his Empire should dissociate himself entirely from that Ulster view. In the past, if you will look back to the-recent years, all our successes have been gained because we have been generous and because we have been faithful to our word. We fought the Boers in South Africa and beat the Boers in South Africa, but because we treated them in the old English spirit we have had General Smuts and General Both a fighting at our right hand. Surely this victory is big enough to make us forget smaller things. We are now at the turning of the ways. Let us remember the spirit that has made men fight, and let us remember the spirit that has made men forgive. We have got the chance of uniting Ireland to us now as we have united the Boers in South Africa, and I very much hope that the Government will take that view and speedily bring about a settlement of the Irish question.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think no one can make the smallest complaint of the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clyne) and his Friends in raising this discussion. It has already led to two very interesting speeches. We have had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and with almost every word of that speech I find myself in substantial agreement, except about the point of law, about which neither of us can be said to be very good judges. Nothing could be more admirable
  496
  than the moderation of tone and lucidity of statement of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and it will, I am sure, greatly add to the authority with which he always speaks in this House. I am afraid I am not at all in agreement with my hon. Friend who spoke last, despite his fascinating personality, since he seemed to me to make precisely the speech which I hoped would not be made on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman lays down a proposition which no one can dispute. He says—and with a truth which I am sure we all deeply feel—that the present is of all times a time when it is necessary to uphold the authority of the law and the impartiality of the administration of the law. Nothing in the world could be more mischievous than the supposition that the law is not fairly administered as between the richer people and poor and insignificant people. Nothing is now a greater danger than lessening the general fabric of public order and the authority of the law, and to every word of that we shall all give hearty acceptance. I do not at all hesitate to say that I think in the circumstances of the time and of the present moment the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) is altogether indefensible. It cannot be defended. But as to whether it is not merely indefensible but illegal, the point, 1 think, is perhaps open to considerable doubt. But if it is also thought to be illegal I should agree that it is very desirable that proceedings should be taken against my right hon. Friend in order that the law might be vindicated. I say that as one who is deeply interested, too much interested perhaps, in the difficult and anxious question of the ethics of resistance, "the case of resistance considered," as our ancestors used to describe it. I have more than once been unfortunate enough to speak in this House on topics akin to that, but I have never been able to take the view which some people find so easy to take, that the law must be always respected and that the individual has never a right to resist the law, whether it be suffragettes or conscientious objectors, or Ulstermen, or any other person. I have never been able to take the view that you can lay down the plain proposition that the law is the law and must be obeyed, and there is no more to be said in the matter. I think, on the contrary, there must always be the supreme appeal to private judgment.

  497
  9.0 p.m.
  But there are two things which must be borne in mind, and which are constantly forgotten. One thing which is constantly forgotten is that the law must never be broken either passively or actively except in very rare cases indeed; secondly, it must never be done unless it is the only possible way of saving the country which you are assisting; and thirdly, and this is the point most forgotten, though the individual subject has a perfect right to say, "My conscience of life has been to take this or that course against the law," the Government have also the right to point out, "We too have a conscience, and our conscience requires that we should repress your lawless conduct." These appeals to force or the breaking of the law are all in the nature of dissolving the ordinary social contract between the governor and the governed, and the governor is as much entitled to use force against the governed as the governed is against the governor. I should not at all complain, even if I thought my right hon. Friend in this particular case justified, of the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that if he has broken the law he should be prosecuted. The proper doctrine is that when a rebel appeals beyond the law he has no right to complain if others use force to which he himself has appealed. It seems to be quite clear that my right hon. Friend's action is indefensible, without going deeply into the question, because one of the obvious requirements is not fulfilled. It is quite obvious that he is not left without a constitutional remedy for a threatened danger to his country. Obviously this House and the other House are under the influence of a majority of those who on the whole Home Rule controversy believe rather in the Unionist than in the Home Rule point of view, and this House is absolutely pledged, and so deeply that it could not without the grossest dishonour break that pledge, not to force Home Rule on Ulster against the wish of the Ulstermen. There can be no doubt that both my right hon. Friends on the Government Bench personally and the whole party who support him are pledged by the language that was used at the time of the election not to force Ulster under a Home Rule Government against its will. That seems to me, without going further, to make my right hon. Friend the Member for Duncairn's speech absolutely indefensible, and there is no justification whatever, as I have said,
  498
  in using the sort of language he does. Whether it is illegal or not, I am not a judge. I have always understood it is impossible to commit a hypothetical offence, and that if you say you are going to break the law in some circumstances not yet arisen you are not breaking the law and are not, therefore, liable to prosecution before a Court.
  Lieut-Colonel THORNE: What about inciting?
  Lord H. CECIL: You must incite to something that is going to happen and not under circumstances which have not yet arisen. No one supposes that the law is at all likely to be broken in consequence of the language the right hon. Gentleman used in this instance.
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: They pinched me for inciting anyhow, and my language was not half so damaging as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division.
  Lord H. CECIL: It may have been not so damaging, but more likely to lead to a breach of the law. Although, as I say, I entirely censure, as far as it is proper for me to do so, the language of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division, it is necessary, especially after the speech of my hon. Friend behind me (Lieut.-Colonel A. Herbert) to say one word to prevent a misapprehension. On the question of illegality, I am with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. On the question of policy, I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend behind me, so far as I understood the point which his speech was designed to make. There is a disposition. I think, in some people to say that, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division uses blameworthy language, therefore the whole of the Ulster objection, to Home Rule ought to beset aside and overridden, or the possibility of its being overridden ought to be considered, and we released in effect from the deeply sworn surety against the coercion of Ulster.
  Lieut.-Colonel HERBERT: That was not my point.
  Lord H. CECIL: I thought that was what the hon. Member meant, but; it does not much matter whether he meant it, because a good many people mean it, at any rate. I am quite sure not only that that would be an act of political perfidy without parallel in Parliamentary history, but

  499
  it would also be a profound blunder and a violation of principles which are deeply enshrined in the very Treaty of Peace which we are about to ratify next week. Why should we treat Ulster worse than we propose to treat the people of Southern Schleswig, the people of Upper Silesia, or the people of Danzig I Why should Ulster-men be the only people who are not to be consulted about the government under which they are to live? I should like to hear what the Labour party would have said, supposing it were proposed that we should send British troops, let us say, to force Danzig under the dominion of Poland—how instantly the Trade Union Congress would be assembled, how we should be threatened with direct action, and goodness knows what! The thing would be regarded as intolerable, and rightly so, but if we are not to coerce Germans to go under Poles, why are we to coerce Ulstermen to go under Nationalists?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the Noble Lord tell us what he means by Ulstermen
  Lord H. CECIL: I mean people, who do not want to come under the government of the hon. Member.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the Noble Lord also declare that the South of Ireland men who do not want to come under Home Rule are not to do so?
  Lord H. CECIL: I should be delighted to exempt them, too, but geography forbids. The point is that you can exempt the Ulstermen, because they live together in a corner.
  Captain REDMOND: Nothing of the kind.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Would the Noble Lord exclude me and those whom I represent from a Home Rule Parliament?
  Lord H. CECIL: I am quite willing to allow him to go and live in Danzig, if he likes. I do not want to get into a conversation, but what I am anxious to emphasise is that we shall not get out of the Irish difficulty in that direction. We cannot possibly do in Ireland what we certainly should not do anywhere else. There is no part of the world where we should accept the proposition that a population perfectly satisfied with the Government under which it lives, and violently hostile to the Government under which it
  500
  is proposed to be put, should be put under that Government against its will. What is the objection to partition? We are told that this is to recognise an Ulster veto on. Home Rule, but it will do nothing of the kind. It is to recognise an Ulster veto on a proposal affecting themselves. No one would maintain that the objection of Ulster should be an objection of a con clusive kind to what is to happen to the rest of Ireland. All that is maintained is that as in Upper Silesia, and as in Danzig, and other places, the wish of the population, the doctrine of self-determination— an expression I am not a great admirer of—should be applied here as elsewhere. What is the objection? You say it blocks Home Rule, but it is not so. It is not the Ulster veto that blocks Home Rule, but the Nationalist veto against partition. It is a coalition of the two which stand together, and jointly stand in the way. I am for the moment assuming that other objections have been met. Which of those two vetoes is the more reasonable, the veto which only relates to what is to happen to the persons who make the veto, or the veto which relates to somebody else quite different? Which is the more unreason able, to say, "We will have nothing done if you do not bring under our authority a body of people who wish to remain where they are and not come under our authority," or, on the other hand, to say, "We are satisfied with the Government which we live under, and we will not con sent to a change." Surely the reasonable position is the position of those who merely seek to determine their own fate, and not the position of the people who insist on determining the fate of others as well. What is the objection to partition? I am told it is inconsistent with Irish nationality, and —
  Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: On a point of Order, Sir. May I ask whether Members are entitled to debate Home Rule from top to bottom?
  Lord H. CECIL: I need not trouble you, Sir, to intervene. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was led to go further than I intended into the subject, because I wanted to meet what was said by my hon. Friend behind me, but I agree that this is not the occasion. I was anxious to show in regard to the objection which is, I think, in the minds of a good many people to the speech which is under criticism, an objection not merely legal, but also political, that on that political point I do

  501
  not think we must allow ourselves to drift, in whatever just reprehension we may utter of the character of the speech itself, we must not allow ourselves to drift into the position that the sentiment which that speech was intended to appeal to was an unreasonable and intolerable sentiment which ought to be set aside. I do not think it is. I think it is a perfectly reasonable sentiment, and one which ought to be upheld, and I am sure we shall not get out of our difficulties in regard to Ireland in that direction. Never, never, never will you get out that way. If it be so decided, try your experiment on the part of Ireland that wants it, try it and let them show by experience, if they can, that it is an acceptable system which will attract Ulster. You may try the conversion of Ulster, but you will never succeed by the other method. I do not want to detain the House any longer. I only wanted to concur in reprehending any appeal to lawlessness under present circumstances, because I think such an appeal under present circumstances is quite unjustified. I wanted to indicate my admiration for the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) takes up in generally up-holding the maintenance of law, which is of such vital importance at the present time. I wanted, lastly, to say that these things do not involve the smallest modification of the general resistance to the proposition that Ulster should be put, against its will, under a Home Rule Government.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am sure that no Member of the House could have listened to the speech in which my right hon. Friend opposite submitted his Motion for the Adjournment without admiring—if he will allow me to say so—both the sincerity and the ability with which he addressed the House, and I am glad to add, as the Noble Lord who has just spoken has said, that with almost the whole of that speech I find myself in entire agreement—that there must be in the administration of justice one weight and one measure, that it is important now, and at all times, but never more important than at this time, to secure respect for and obedience to the law, and that the earnestness and conviction with which an offence is committed, if indeed an offence be committed, are no excuse for the offender. Those are propositions with which everyone of us must agree. But I cannot help thinking that the House has a
  502
  little departed from the very limited subject-matter upon which leave to move the Adjournment was granted.
  Let us just look for a moment at the terms of the Motion which is before the House. The Motion complains of what is described as
  "the lack of any declared intention on the part of the Government to set the law in motion against the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn."
  Those words assume that there is some law which both can be, and ought to be, set in motion against him. They do not say what that law is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Treason felony!"] I hear the hon. Member opposite say "treason felony." I will deal with that in a moment. The Motion for the Adjournment does not profess to say what that law is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members will bear with me, the remaining words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman do supply at least a clue to what is intended to be conveyed by the authors of this Motion. The words refer, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred, to the speech or speeches delivered by the right hon. and learned Member on Saturday last, and the allegation against those speeches is that they were speeches inciting to violence and breaches of the law, calculated to endanger the safety of the realm. If that were indeed a true description of those speeches, or if I were satisfied that it was a true description of them, it would be, no doubt, my duty to set the law in motion and to run the risk of a jury taking a different view. But it is precisely here that the allegation contained in this Motion, and reiterated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, breaks down. Observe the question, and the only question, which is involved. It is a clear, direct and strictly limited question, and it is essentially a question of law. We arc not considering whether it was desirable that those speeches should be delivered. We are not considering whether, if any time or any occasion at all could be thought suitable for such speeches, 12th July was that occasion, or the present year was that time. Still less are we considering whether at this time, or at any time, such speeches as these ought to be expected of a right hon. and learned Member of this House, a leader and ornament of the Bar, quite recently a Cabinet Minister and a senior Law Officer of the Crown.
  No, Sir, the question is a different one. The question is this: Whether the Law

  503
  Officers of the Crown ought to have advised the Government that these speeches were speeches inciting to violence and breaches of the law, calculated to endanger the safety of the realm, and, therefore, that the law ought to be set in motion? The Law Officers of the Crown are responsible for the advice which they give. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, at the moment when this question arose, was away in Paris, but since his return I have communicated to him the advice which I gave in response to the question asked me, and he entirely concurs in it. We have been asked, What was that advice? The advice which I gave, and to which I adhere, is this: that in this speech there was nothing upon which it was possible to found legal proceedings. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are entitled, no doubt, if they please, to interrupt, but I am sure they will bear with me while I give my reasons for that. Two passages, and two passages alone, in this speech have been referred to, and, if I may, I will reread them. They were the two passages which I had marked as being the only two passages in that speech as to which it could even be suggested that legal proceedings were possible. Let us look at those passages. The first is this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "I will tell them if there is any attempt made to take away from you one jot or tittle of your rights as British subjects, and the advantages which have been won in this war of freedom, I will call out the Ulster Volunteers."
  "If"—Yes. I pause to ask: Does anyone propose to take away from the Ulstermen one jot or tittle of their rights as British subjects? Does anyone propose to take away from them the advantages which have been won in this war of freedom? What the right Hon. and learned Gentle man said in a rhetorical passage, which I am not in the least defending, seems to me to be miles away from a criminal offence. What he is saying upon the happening of an impossible condition in future times is, "I will take a certain course." It is a hypothetical, contingent threat. That is one passage. My hon. Friend opposite in terjected the words "treason felony." There is no "treason felony" in this case. I pass to the other passage. This is the sole remaining matter which is alleged. At the close of his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman said this —
  Mr. CLYNES: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me if I ask a question with regard to that last quotation, in order that we may see precisely where we are? There is a great question of the nationalisation of the mines. Do I understand now that any miners' leader may say that if this Government does not nationalise the mines, any measures of violence which the miners by overt or direct action may care to take will be quite within the law
  Sir G. HEWART: I am certainly not going to express an opinion upon a hypothetical question of that kind, but I am sure the House observes this, that the parellel passage which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to put to me is not a parallel passage at all. In this hypothetical case he puts into the mouth of that miner, not a statement as to something which he himself will do upon the happening of a future event, but he puts into the mouth of that miner a general invitation to miners upon the happening of a future event. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the calling out of the Volunteers?"]
  The second passage is this:
  "I gave you this pledge in the Ulster Hall, and I repeat it to you once more, that if any attempt be made to revive or to put it into force I will summon the Provisional Government."
  Again, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to say that he will summon an institution which he chooses to call the Provisional Government at some future time upon the happening of some event, whatever else you may think or say, I should differ from a lawyer who said that that was the commission of an offence.
  By all means, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, let us look at this matter from a level high above the level of technicalities. The question here is a question whether a criminal prosecution ought to be lodged. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously say that the question whether a criminal prosecution is to be lodged is to be considered apart from technicalities? As soon as you begin to ask, What offence is he to be charged with? What is the indictment to be? you find yourself faced with the technicalities of the criminal law. It may well be that connected with this matter, but not upon this Motion, there are political questions which must indeed be considered from a level high above technicalities; but the question whether in a particular case a

  505
  criminal prosecution is to be lodged, and the Law Officers of the Crown are to advise, is a question we have to consider in the light of the criminal law; and the criminal law is not disparaged in the smallest degree by the fact that in the course of debate somebody may choose to stigmatise or dismiss it as a matter of technicalities.
  Those are the considerations upon which I gave the advice by which I stand. Let me add this one observation. This is not the first, nor the second, nor the twentieth time that, as a Law Officer of the Crown— for the last six months as Attorney-General and for three months acting as Attorney-General during the absence of the then Attorney-General in America—I have had to consider and to decide. In this case I have not to decide, but I have had to consider; but in an enormous number of eases I have had to decide whether a crimial prosecution should or should not be lodged. I have sanctioned many, I have refused many more; but from first to last I have never proposed to myself any other step than that there must be one way and one measure for the rich or for the poor, for the influential or for the powerless.
  My right hon. Friend, in the concluding part of his speech, referred to the absence from the House of the right lion, and learned Gentleman whose speeches have been referred to. I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absent solely from, a feeling of delicacy. Of this I am quite sure: he is the last Member of this House who would be absent from any lack of courage. Let me add this further. It is not really upon this Motion the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentleman that are being attacked. What is being attacked is the course which the Government have taken. The Government have taken that course on the advice of the Law Officers, and the persons who are being attacked now are the Law Officers of the Crown. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absent, but he is not the person who is being attacked. Therefore, the answer which I suggest to this Motion is this: If indeed it were true that an offence had been committed, a prosecution ought to follow. I go further, and say that if I were satisfied that an offence had been committed, or that there was a case to be tried, my advice would have been different from what it was. The answer to this Motion is that there may well be a lack of declared intention on the
  506
  part of the Government to set the law in motion against the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for the reason that, on what has taken place, however much it may be-regretted on many grounds, especially at a time like the present, there is no law to be set in motion, inasmuch as no offence has been committed.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given is one which I venture to think is, even on the assumption that his law is unchallengeable, a reply to be regretted throughout all classes of society, and I think first of all for this reason. Of course, it is only matters of policy that we are really concerned with in. our general debates in this House, and on great questions of policy of this kind it is a deep-rooted feeling throughout the whole British nation, and it has been for many years, that on broad general grounds it should be easily demonstrable that there is no distinction between a breach of the law committed by a person of privilege and authority and one committed by a person who occupies the humblest ranks here. The unfortunate thing is—and in this I am sure I shall have the agreement of my right hon. Friend opposite—that, however clear may be the law which he has. laid down, there will be in the minds of hundreds of thousands of steady-minded, reasonable, ordinary citizens of this country a feeling that a distinction has been made between my right lion, and learned Friend the Member for the Dun-cairn Division and the mob orator, as we may call him, or the trade union leader, or the ordinary Labour agitator, in dealing with questions of offences against public order.
  Sir G. HEWART: Do you encourage that view?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I am simply stating that that is What will be felt throughout the Kingdom on reading this Debate. With great deference, I ask my right lion. Friend, as a Law Officer of the Crown, if he has—and this is on the legal point—consulted the Irish Law Officers with regard to the position in Ireland as distinguished from the position in Great Britain That is where the ordinary man and woman feel themselves at issue. In Ireland to-day there has been, substantially at any rate, a suspension of the ordinary law which my right hon. and learned Friend has made an appeal to

  507
  to-day. I do not know if I am correct or not in saying that martial law is practically being administered in Ireland today; that it is possible, by order of the Lord Lieutenant or an officer, as the case may be, to arrest or bring to summary trial, without any of the ordinary legal processes to which we are accustomed in this country, any person who delivers a speech which, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, is likely to be subversive of public order. I believe that something of that kind is the case in Ireland to-day and that there are in Ireland to-day hundreds of men, political offenders, in prison. That seems to me to be a point with which my right hon. Friend has not dealt. The Defence of the Realm Act runs in Ireland, of course, as it does here. The special Acts which are applicable to Ireland have been revived, and are in force with all the authority of the Lord Lieutenant, backed by the great armed forces which he has got there. I ask again—Has the Law Officer, in the opinion he has given us here tonight, fully considered the Irish law? Is he satisfied in his own mind that, as compared with an Irish Nationalist or a Sinn Feiner—of course, let them all be equal before the law—that in the decision he has come to with regard to the exemption from prosecution of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn he has dealt with him as equally, as solemnly, before his idea of what the law is in Ireland, as he would deal with the humblest peasant in Ireland to-day That is the point I should like to make.
  Sir G. HEWART: I gather that my right hon. Friend is asking me a question. In coming to the conclusion to which I did come I did not consult the Irish Law Officers. I did not consult them because I was not asked to do so. I received a case for the opinion of the Law Officers of England, but I had the advantage of conferring with my colleague the Attorney-General in Ireland, and he entirely agrees with me in the advice which I have given.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Of course, I deal with this legal point with all the deference which I naturally feel in discussing such a matter with my right hon. and learned Friend. What did the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn say:
  "I will once more summon the Provisional Government."
  508
  That body, an illegal body, was set up on 10th July, 1914. That is an appeal, in language which everybody in this House deplores, I take it, to an illegal body, for what must be an illegal act. I feel that these points which I put forward, though they may be strictly not well and solidly grounded in law, raise an amount of dubiety in the mind of the general public which makes the decision which the Government have come to one which, at any rate, I regret.
  I will only say this, that I do not think the matter can rest here, on what, after all, is an opinion based upon some rather nice legal point. My appeal to the Government to-night is this, in just three or four sentences. They know, we all know, the deep waters through which we are attempting to find our feet at the present moment. No one knows what the outcome of the next few weeks may be. There is one great thing, which will always carry the British people through, and it is this, if they have a deep-rooted confidence, whatever their mistakes and differences of opinion may be, in the essential earnestness of the Government of the day. Although this may be just the nice legal position, are the Government going to leave it there; is there not some step which they can take? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Well, I do not know. This is not a Court of law. It is an Assembly of the representatives of the people of this nation for discussing whether there are good laws or whether laws may be altered, or some administrative act may be taken to remedy an injustice and a grave danger. That is the position. I do not know whether this Motion might be withdrawn and whether the Government of the day might agree to a Motion in this House expressing its opinion that language of this kind, uttered in the circumstances of the day, is a matter on which we can, at any rate, express our condemnation, because the people of the country are looking for something to be done with regard to this matter beyond the nice legal technicalities of the situation. If we pass this thing without anything more than, I will not say legal evasion, but avoiding any action owing to legal advice, the people will feel and say that we have not fully done our duty. The thing cannot be left where it is. Something ought to be done, and I make the suggestion, which I have thrown out in all seriousness, in the hope that this act, which is only one of a series, reacting in this country in the next few days, and at

  509
  Keswick—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, that is the trouble, we will not face the facts. Let us face the facts and try to do something to swing back moral authority to this House of Parliament and to the Government. If we do that, 1 have no fear of what the future may be; but if we fail in it, I have great fear.
  Captain WATSON: I rise to intervene for a very few moments. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment of the House, and the hon. Member who followed him, who both somewhat apologised and said that they spoke with reluctance, I rise to-night with no reluctance at all, because I feel that this is about the most serious matter which has come before the present Parliament. I am perfectly sure that every hon. Member in this House wishes to deal with the question, and has already shown his intention of dealing with it, with that seriousness that it deserves. I should like to be allowed—although it may seem almost invidious on my part to do so—to add my tribute to the moderation, fairness, and conspicuous ability with which the right hon. Gentleman moved the Adjournment of the House. For my part, I agree with almost everything he said. I thought, however, that the weakest part of his case was shown when he said it would not do to ride off on a technicality or a legal point. He knows perfectly well, and the whole House knows perfectly well, that the meanest criminal and the most illiterate defendant is entitled to acquittal, and ought not to have an indictment lodged against him, if there is a good legal or technical defence to his case.
  But I should also like to add that, for my part— and I am sure the feeling is shared by some hon. Members behind me who support this Government— that up till now we are disappointed with the attitude which the Government has shown. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, many, I am sure, on this side of the House, as well as on the other, hope that before this De-bate is concluded some other expressions will be made by members or a member of the Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Leader!"]—replying for the Government, as to the attitude they propose to adopt in the future with regard to matters of this kind. Because, whatever may be the opinion of this House as to whether a legal or a technical offence has been committed— and whether we agree with the answer by the Attorney-General or not,
  510
  at any rate we all agree that his advice was given in purity, disinterestedness, and impartiality—yet we do hope that some further answer will be given by the Government it may be said that the terms of the Motion for Adjournment do not pro-mote this. May 1 point out to the House that the questions on the Order Paper this afternoon all include in them some-thing more than an answer to mere legal or technical points? The question which was put by my right hon. Friend concluded by asking
  "what action the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take to show equality before the law for all who advise men to defy it and threaten violence if the law is carried out?"
  The next question on the Paper concludes by asking
  "whether the Government approve of such action?"
  Therefore, I think it was to be expected, if not in the answers this afternoon, certainly from the answer of the Government to-night, that it will show its strong and emphatic disapproval of the dangerous and inflammatory speech which was made a few days ago; that it will show to this House, to the country, and to the whole world that in thefuture—and in the near future—this House will deal with a strong, determined, and impartial hand—that the Government will deal with these matters in a manner which will gain the widespread approval and sympathy of the country.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am afraid I will rather disappoint the House in the one or two observations that I intend to address to Members this evening. I have not risen for the purpose of attacking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson). I am not surprised at any speech any Irishman makes breaking the law in Ireland, nor am I in the least surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is not only a powerful and brilliant lawyer, but a keen and instinctively powerful political tactician, should deliver the speech he did deliver. We on these benches are hostile to the Government: the right hon. and learned Gentleman has nothing but contempt for them. We assail the Government: he threatens the Government. There is one thing about the right hon. Gentleman that I admire: when he threatens the Government, he means what he says; therefore, when he told us that, if they put the Home Rule Act into operation as it
  stands upon the

  511
  Statute Book, that he would call out the Ulster Volunteers, with all their scientifically organised military equipment and, in a word, organise another rebellion in Ireland and in Ulster, he meant what he said. I must give the right hon. Gentleman credit for having the courage of his convictions and the courage to declare those convictions. Therefore, in these questions it is not the right hon. Gentleman who is to be assailed, but the Government, because a more mean and tricky performance than that to which we have been witnesses to-night I have never seen in this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for England rose at that box. What business had he there? The speech was delivered in Ireland. It was delivered in a heated and inflammatory atmosphere. It was a speech in which it is suggested the law was broken in Ireland, and not in England.
  The right hon. Gentleman is a Liberal. We know something of the class of Liberals who are going nowadays. He is a Liberal. He got up, and on the strength of his past Liberal record told us that since he took office he had stood as a stout defender of the weak and as an assailant of wrong, whether committed by the weak or the strong. But he stands at that box, not to uphold the law at all, but because he is the more capable interpreter of exhibiting how lawyers can see that the law is abused. The right hon. Gentleman says that he regards all per-sons as equal in his eyes. I am glad he made that speech to-night; I am delighted he made it. I shall demand in this House that every humble peasant in Ireland who is arraigned before the law will have his case considered in this House, and we will have the legal opinion of the Attorney-General as to whether that man has been rightly arrested or not. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has come here to-night, because at last we shall get equality before the law for all sections of the people of Ireland.
  Supposing I were to get up on a Belfast platform and say, "I am opposed to the partition of Ireland. I believe in Home Rule, which is to me as deeply profound and passionate a conviction as it is to any person. I demand my right to be included in an Irish Parliament sitting in the capital of Ireland, and if you attempt to drive me out of it I will organise the Belfast Branch of the National Volunteers
  512
  and I will compel you by force to allow the Constituency which I represent in Parliament to remain within the Irish Parliament." Would that be an offence? If a Sinn Feiner stands upon a platform in Ireland and says, "If we do not get an Irish Republic, we will organise our forces and arm and drill them, is that an offence? What does the right hon. Gentleman say? His interpretation of the law is this—[An HON. MEMBER: "Inequality!"]—that you can be a contingent rebel if you take up one attitude, and you cannot be a contingent rebel if you take up another attitude. That is the position of the right hon. Gentleman. All I have to say is that the Members of this House who nave forecasted and foreseen great dangers to the State by utterances of this character must determine that question for themselves. I submit to the House of Commons that to arrest peasants for singing "The Wearing the Green," to break up meetings because the Irish language is to be the language spoken at those meetings, to proclaim great Gaelic festivals and national sports with a Catholic Archbishop in the chair, may appear to be a contemptible thing in the eyes of the Government, and may be an affair of no account, and yet a speech of that character can be delivered in a highly heated atmosphere before an easily in-flammable audience, and the Law Officer of the Crown for Ireland, who knows some-thing as to how the law is interpreted in Ireland, is not called upon to give an legal interpretation, but the Attorney-General for England is selected in his place.
  Where is the equality? This has been done not to vindicate the law but to apologise for and. vindicate the law breaker, and that is the position of the right hon. Gentleman. All you have to do now if you are a supporter of the Coalition Government is to use the word "if," and that meets every legality and egality. That gives the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of coming to the House of Commons and delivering his interpretation, and he tries to narrow this question down to a point of law. It is not a point of law at all, and it has not been raised as such, but as a matter of public policy. I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman making speeches breaking the law, but I do ask that if a poor peasant in Tipperary or Cork is merely guilty of some offence, or of no

  513
  offence at all, which in the eyes of the Government is an offence, and if he can find neither an apologist in this House nor elsewhere, it has certainly come to a nice conditions of affairs here when a man in a highly conspicuous position in the public life of the nation need not come down to defend himself as long as the Attorney-General will come down and do it for him.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. INSKIP: A greater contrast between the two speeches to which we have just listened could not possibly be imagined. Tine right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), who is a Lawyer and acquainted with the law, invites this House, as a suburban debating society would behave, to pass resolutions of dissent or disagreement with the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. The only comment that I venture to make upon that is that this House is not a Court of law and neither is it a Court of morals nor of taste. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Devlin), not professing a knowledge of the law, roundly condemns the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, whose advice was given, because in his estimation he gave a wrong interpretation of the law. If the hon. Member who has just spoken intended to charge the Attorney-General with ill-faith in the opinion he expressed, I am confident this House will not support his accusation. If he intended to impugn the accuracy of the law which the right hon. Gentleman ex-pressed, and the opinion he gave when it was sought, I think this House will prefer the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman to that of the 'hon. Member who knows perhaps not so much about the law as the right hon. Gentleman whose opinion he condemns.
  The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), who opened this Debate, won our admiration by the manner in which he did it, and I think none of us will dispute the general thesis which he laid before this House. If it is equality of the law which we demand, then we are all in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. It would be disastrous, indeed it would be obnoxious to every one of us, if we thought there was any foundation for the suggestion that the great are allowed to go scot-free, when the poor and the friendless are prosecuted and persecuted. It is not what the right hon. Gentleman said that we disagree with. Some of us think that the evidence
  514
  which he adduced did not support the charge which he brought. He suggested, in the first place, that because a number of comparatively small and friendless people had been charged with sedition or incitement to crime, and had been found guilty that therefore the right hon. Gentleman should be condemned, but that argument will not hold water for one moment.
  I do not want to labour the point which has been made. The right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Duncairn has committed at the worst a hypothetical offence. I do not possess the learning or the qualifications of the Attorney-General, but I venture to deal with one criticism of his opinion upon this question of a hypothetical offence. He was asked whether a miner who threatened a breach of the law if nationalisation was not at once enacted would be guilty of a crime. I cannot help thinking that it would be apparent to every one of us that there is the clearest possible distinction between a man who threatens a breach of the law, if the law under which we all live is not altered, and the threat of a man who says, "If the law under which I possess property and have to live is altered in a manner either prejudicial to my property or my liberty, thon I shall do what I think is right under the circumstances." I think hon. Members will not, upon reflection, disagree with the distinction between two such statements as that. I will offer an illustration which occurs to me on the spur of the moment which will make my meaning plainer. You may make boundaries between countries which have to be altered. It would be intolerable if people who valued the liberty they possessed under one Government were not to be allowed to defend themselves if that liberty is to be taken away by an alteration of the laws under which they are living. That, at any rate, is part of the offence which the right hon. Gentleman has committed. Suppose, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, he goes down to Dublin and takes up a position antagonistic to the existing law; that he defies the law under which we all live and have our liberties, and declares that if this law is not altered then he will commit a crime?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Rule Act is on the Statute Book, and the threat, if threat was intended, was that if that Act was put into operation?
  Mr. INSK1P: I am as well aware as the hon. Member that the Home Rule Act is on the Statute Book. But the hon. Gentleman must be as well aware as I am that it is not the law of the land until it becomes effective. He does not take away from the strength of my argument by suggesting irrelevancies of that character. The point seems to be clear if only hon. Members will reflect on the distinction between the two illustrations which have been suggested in the argument advanced this evening. The hon. Member has also suggested that this is a matter of policy rather than of law. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member on that' question. It does appear to be a question of policy, but if there is one part of our traditional British policy which we value more than any other, it is that every man has not to be prosecuted who commits a breach of the law if the greater interests of public safety or private liberty require that he should not be proceeded against. Wherever you look in this country, if you desire to discover crime, you will find incitement to rebellion or to resistance of authority. I may give another illustration. An emissary was recently arrested in Berlin who, I understand from the public Press, has had connection with emissaries from and leaders of the Bolshevik regime in other countries. I do not know whether he has been released or proceeded against. I imagine if that man, who has been, as some of us understand, in active correspondence with the leaders of the greatest and most criminal system the world knows, is released, it will be not because he is innocent of crime, but because it is the policy of the Government to allow men who can do no great mischief to express themselves and to behave in an intolerable fashion. That is part of our traditional policy. We allow people to express sentiments which are not perhaps desirable, but which will do no great harm unless they are persisted in to the last resort. There is one further consideration I would venture to dwell upon. The hon. Member opposite gave the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division full credit for his courage. I cannot help thinking it is an advantage for this House and the country to under-stand where Ulster stands. I am not defending the right hon. Gentleman. I am not defending Ulster. She may be, if you please, obstinate and foolish in the attitude which she takes up, but if we are going to settle this problem which does
  516
  baffle us, it is well to realise the factors with which we have to deal, and it is use-less to blink the fact, if it be the fact, that Ulster is determined on a certain course.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going rather beyond the limit of the Motion for which leave was obtained, and I may just remind the House of the actual terms of the Motion, which are "the lack of any intention on the part of the Government to set the law in motion," etc.
  Mr. INSKIP: I accept your ruling, Sir. I merely desired to make this point, that it may be an advantage that the right hon. Gentleman should not be proceeded against if his utterances, though technically an offence against the law on the whole, may be allowed to be made without endangering either the liberty of the subject or the peace of the realm. I will not proceed with that argument, however, in the light of your suggestion that I should not develop it. I will only say this, in conclusion, that Ireland has had a sorrowful history. She presents a baffling problem to us. It does not seem to me we are assisting the solution of the problem if we quicken blunders into crime, or find treason in utterances that were surely inspired only by the utmost loyalty to the Crown and by love of the country to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs.
  Mr. T. SHAW:I am profoundly disappointed by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I remember an occasion when the Secretary for Ireland, speaking from the Front Bench with a full sense of responsibility, said it was his determination and the determination of the Government that law and order should be prevalent in Ireland. I ask the Government to be just as firm and just as deter-mined on this occasion as they claimed to be on the occasion to which I have referred. Let me point out what the right hon. and learned Member for Belfast said and claimed. He claimed that he had an army at his command, an Ulster volunteer army which he could call out if this Parliament passed a law to which he objected. That was the essence of his claim with regard to the army. He claimed also that he had a government which he would call together if Parliament decided against the policy that he advocated. I thought the name of His Majesty the King was "George." It appears, however, that in a certain part of Ireland his majesty is "Edward." That citizens of this realm

  517
  can be permitted to have an army and a government and yet not break the law seems to me very strange. If we tell our people that there is no breach of the law in claiming an army and a government of their own to use against this Government if Parliament passes a law of which they do not approve, what will they reply? Some of us are fighting day after day to prevent breaches of the law; we are fighting day after day to convince working men who do not believe there is equality before the law that the safest course is constitutional action and constitutional methods. And yet here we have men who can go on platforms and say things that we know would land working men into gaol inside of a week from the utterance of them. How can we conscientiously go to our people and say the people are equal before the law, when we know in our heart of hearts that they are not equal? I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether he could convince any outside audience in this country that the things that have been said in Belfast are not against the law, and, at the same time, justify the imprisonment of men for saying things not half so damaging and not half so dangerous? Our men have never claimed that they possess an army and a government to act against our Army and our Government in case Parliament passes a law which they do not like. We simply cannot go and speak with a voice which we know is not true. If we feel that men are not equal before the law how can we hope to convince our people that they are? This is one of the examples to my mind of the inequality of men before the law, for it is permitted that the rich and mighty shall do things without punishment which in a poorer and less educated man, who is to be pitied rather than blamed, would lead to his instant imprisonment. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that in spite of the fact that technically there was no offence against the law the Government keenly represented speeches of this kind, one could have understood the position of the Government, bait no statement of the kind was made. One is led to infer that so long as a man is powerful enough he can say what he likes, and the Government of this country will bow to him and allow him to have his way. There is danger in this country of action being taken that, to my mind, has arisen directly from this kind of lesson. People
  518
  have been taught that all that is needed to get what they require is to intimidate the Government. This is the kind of action that has taught the lesson. 1 earnestly appeal to the Government to make a clear declaration one way or the other as to whether this speech is to be condemned or is not. I earnestly appeal to them to make it obvious to all the people in this country that pride of place shall not shield from the powers of the law if the law be broken, that no citizen of this country has the right to assume that he is the commander of an army, and that he is the convener of a Government. The commander of the Army, under our constitution, is His Majesty the King, and there ought to be no other army, and the man, whatever his name may be, who claims to have an army in these Islands outside the Army of the King is in his proper place in gaol and ought to be gaoled just as the commonest and poorest of men would be in the like circumstances. This is no occasion for the mincing of words. A fine-spun legal argument will get away from the point. Either this is a crime committed against the country or it is not. If the Government believe it is not let them say so, and take what follows. If they believe it is a crime let them state so equally frankly and then those of us who are trying our best to keep the country on constitutional lines will have a chance with our people. But let the Government maintain the attitude laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, let them play with fine technical phrases, let them play with details of law, let them not make a plain statement, and there is not an organised workman in the whole country who will believe the word of the Government when they claim that Britons are equal before the law.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: The hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) has laid stress on the inequality of various subjects before the law. Does he really imagine there is anybody who has ever been proceeded against or is now languishing in gaol because of some statement that he may have made in which he indicated that if a certain thing happened, which had not happened, at some future date he would take certain action? If so it seems to me the law is a "hass" and ought to be altered on the earliest possible occasion. Can he quote a single case of a man who suggested that if certain events happened at some distant future date he was going to take some action and was proceeded against? [An

  519
  HON. MEMBER: "Any amount!"] It is a debating point that is not seriously advanced.
  Mr. SEXTON: I can give you names.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean). It was one of the most eloquent speeches he has ever made in the House. Not only was it eloquent, it was passionate. We know how very moved he was standing at the box and upholding law and order in this country. In view of the course of the Debate I cannot help asking how it is that the right hon. Gentle-man's enthusiasm is so new-found, and why when a leader of Sinn Fein in Ire-land announced himself President of the Irish Republic, the right hon. Gentle-man did not come here and insist that the law should be put into force? I will ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. When Mr. de Valera escaped from a British prison—I am not here to excuse the action of the Govern-ment—did the Leader of the Liberals come here in order to demand that he should not be allowed to roam about freely in Ireland, and that he ought to be in prison? I will ask him another question. How often has he been here in order to ask how it is that this gentleman who escaped from an English prison is allowed to be in the United States at the present moment?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Why was it you had nobody with you in the Lobby the other night?
  Brigadier-General CROFT: That has nothing to do with this Debate, but I think that if my hon. Friend ever votes for his convictions he will not get more than four people to go into the Lobby with him. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question, although he does not seem anxious to answer me. Has he seen the speech made by Mr. Philip Snowden, who used to be a Member of this House, in which he expressed the hope that the revolution which he sees coming may not be a bloody revolution, in which he practically threatened revolution, and that there might be a bloody revolution in this country unless some-thing is done which he desires? I did not notice the right hon. Gentleman coming into this House then and showing himself anxious to preserve law and order. Does he seriously contend—I am not a lawyer—
  520
  that if he himself, as Leader of the Liberal party in this House, made a speech and said that unless prohibition was carried in five years' time ho would call out his fighting men in the Liberal party, that he-ought to be locked up and proceedings ought to be taken against him by the Government? I think we may really dismiss his speech as a finely stage-managed but not very serious attempt to deal with this question.
  I want to deal with a more serious point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for the Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), who took a very interesting line, and suggested that there was no need for the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) to-have made such a speech, because he knew of the consistently good faith of this Parliament, and that the pledges which were-made months or years ago with regard to Ulster would always be carried out. I hope they will be carried out, but all pledges have not always been carried out. I cannot deal with the question of pledges-now, except to answer the argument of the Noble Lord; but he must remember that sometimes circumstances do not enable a political party to carry out its pledges. The Member for Somerset (Colonel Aubrey Herbert), in his most courageous speech this evening— for he is always courageous in championing of the right to fight in Ulster or the right not to fight at different periods— disputed the argument of the Noble Lord. He said that whatever we do we must be faithful to our sworn word. The sworn word of my hon. and gallant Friend was to go and fight in Ulster and I suggest to the Noble Lord that where one such gallant fighter can disappear from his pledges, there may be a number of others who may do likewise.
  The whole situation has been brought about owing to the fact that a very powerful newspaper magnate had seen fit to declare for Home Rule. I do not think that anybody can seriously dispute that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman never would have been made at all if we had not had this new policy announced that there was to be Dominion Home Rule in Ireland. That was the reason why—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now executing a flank movement. He must confine himself to the subject under discussion.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I was only following the habit which has always made

  521
  me wish to go round a hill when I could not go over the top. I will merely say that the point is germane to the Debate inasmuch as it caused the speech to be made. The right hon. Member for the Miles Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) started his speech by saying that he under-stood that there was only one Government in this country, and asked could the Government be ignorant of the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to call together a Government. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman who pleads for equality has not noticed the setting up of another Government in Ireland, which has also been called together, and which neither he nor his Friends have ever protested against.
  Mr. DEVLIN: There is no Government in Ireland.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: That is the fault of the hon. Gentleman and his Friends in the past.
  An HON. MEMBER: It was Ulster that began it.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: In 1906 Ire-land was peaceable. It had never been more so. The right hon. Gentleman regards it as a great crime that the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division suggested that Volunteers might be called together once more. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and the Labour party, when did they stand up in this House and condemn the constant drilling, which went on, of the Sinn Fein Volunteers in Ireland?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Who began it?
  Brigadier-General CROFT: My hon. Friend mentioned that he had always been a very keen advocate of federalism. So have I—I cannot go into that question now--until I saw what happened in the War. Things have happened in the War which have rendered the whole situation different. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn was not making a new speech. He was making the speech which he has made all along—the speech which my hon. Friends always cheered in the past. And when he repeats that speech now, is there anything changed in the situation? Has Ireland during the War proved that it is more desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should abandon his policy? All the prophecies which the right hon. Member for Duncairn made in
  522
  the past have been proved during the War to be correct. If it was right for the right hon. Gentleman at the time he made his first speech to swear the oath that he would fight sooner than go under a Government of Nationalists, as they were then, the conditions are precisely the same to-day, only they are very much strengthened. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Member for East Fife, then sat on that bench, and their legal advisers did not take action when a similar speech was made then, and I ask, in view of the changes during the War, and the conditions that now exist in reference to the minority in Ireland, whether there is any justification for saying that the situation has undergone any change since then? And I ask hon. Gentlemen who have only recently come to this House, and have not heard these Debates in the past, to remember that the right hon. Gentleman in his speeches—I am not here to apologise for him—had no reason for changing his views merely because the. War has passed which has proved that the people under whose government you want to drive the people of Ulster were not ready to stand by you in your hour of trial.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I will intervene for only a few minutes. The incident which we are discussing is one of the most serious matters which this House has had to discuss for a considerable time. This is not the first time that a speech of the kind we are considering has been delivered by the right hon. Member for Duncairn. We had him delivering speeches of a similar character before the War. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last drew attention to that fact. Not only was the right hon. Gentleman delivering such speeches before the War, but he was gun-running and making preparations for armed rebellion in order to defeat a law passed in this House. What results followed? The right hon. Gentleman very shortly after was loaded with honours by the Government; he was appointed to a high Government position. What I want to tell the Government is this—that these speeches and the actions I have spoken of have been quoted in this country during the past five years from hundreds of plat-forms, and they have been put forward as the excuses for the preaching of all sorts of policies. Now, again, we have the right hon. Gentleman repeating his very serious offence. I want to ask the

  523
  Government what they intend to do on this occasion. If the Government has no other policy than the one outlined by the learned Attorney-General, I want to say that the attitude of the Government is as dangerous at the moment as the speech itself. I do not profess to have any know-ledge of the technicalities of the law, but if no offence has been committed—
  Sir G. HEWART: I do not want to interrupt. The right hon. Gentleman says he has no knowledge of the technicalities of the law, but he is saying that the prosecution ought to be started.
  Mr. ADAMSON: No, no; I am not. I said that if the policy that has been out-lined by the learned Attorney-General is the policy of the Government regarding this, the answer which has been given is as dangerous as the speech itself.
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I really want to know what my right hon. Friend means by "policy." The question is whether or not action should be taken. The answer is that there is no cause for it. Does he say that in order to influence public opinion we should have a prosecution, even though we know no offence has been committed?
  Mr. ADAMSON: There are other ways in which the Government can show their disapproval of the action of the right hon. Member for Duncairn; there are steps that can be taken. I want to give the Leader of the House an opportunity of saying something on behalf of the Government, and give him as much time as possible. Before I conclude let me say that if the learned Attorney-General is right, there are other ways in which the Government can show their disapproval of the action that has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. All that I want to say regarding the position taken up by the Attorney-General is this: It is very difficult indeed for us who sit on these benches to reconcile his opinion of this case with the opinion that has been given by legal authorities in this country regarding scores of prosecutions which have taken place. Recently we had three or four men committed in the city of Glasgow for inciting to riot, and those men are in prison now. It is very difficult for us to believe that every man is being treated equally in the eyes of the law when speeches of this kind are being
  524
  allowed to pass and we are calmly told by the Attorney-General that there has been no offence committed in the eyes of the law, and that the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Duncairn is not amenable to the law for this speech he has delivered. As I was pointing out, there are other ways in which the Government can show its disapproval of the action that has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in finishing up this Debate—and I am going to resume my seat to give him the opportunity of finishing up the Debate—can, if he cares, condemn the action in the name of the whole Government—can so show to the whole country that at least the Government wants to see all the citizens of this country placed on an equal footing. There is another policy that can. be pursued by the Government if they care. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn has received honours at the hands of the Government. If the offence is as serious as some of us think, they can strip him of those honours. There are many ways in which the Government can show their disapproval, if they really disapprove of the action that has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I know of nothing that could be more dangerous under the present conditions than the injudicious speech that was delivered on Saturday last. It certainly deserves the condemnation of his fellow countrymen, and in particular the condemnation of the Government itself.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask if this Debate is coming to an end without any observations from the Leader of the House? I will immediately resume my seat without saying another word if the right hon. Gentleman desires to address the House and state his views with regard to the speech.
  Mr. BONARLAW: I had no intention of doing so, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me ten minutes it will be ample.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I will give you fifteen minutes. I have listened, I must say, to this whole Debate with feelings of the greatest misgiving, not merely for Ireland, but for England—I mean Great Britain and Ireland—and I hold that, great as is the offence which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman committed, against the peace of Ireland, it is a. greater and more perilous and more criminal offence to the peace of this country.

  525
  I warn hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who represent to a large extent the propertied interests of this country—I warned lion. Members of this House in the last Parliament and several other Parliaments, and I warn them again here. You brought down the constitutional movement in Ireland. It was you who created Sinn Fein. It was not De Valera; it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division; it was the Leader of the House who backed him; it was all those Gentlemen who threatened to go to Ireland to fight against the will of Parliament—it was they who created Sinn Fein. I warn you that, as they broke down the constitutional movement in Ireland, they are going the right way to break down the constitutional movement here. I should like to know what answer my right hon. Friends have to give to the apostles of direct action, to the gospel of revolution, bloody or otherwise—horrible words are now used—what answer are they to give, those Gentlemen in office, to the cowardly connivance of the Government in the incitements to violence made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division? I will not deal with the Attorney-General. I do not think he is worth dealing with. I am perfectly sure that in all his long career as a barrister, when he has had to speak deliberately to a brief, there never was a more humiliating moment than when he had to face the realities of this situation in a series of despicable legal quibbles. I did not get up to criticise the right hon. Gentleman or to speak on the question generally, but to challenge the Leader of the House to tell the country that he at least, the Leader of the Conservative party, uttered the strongest condemnation of these incitements to violence against the civil law.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it rather hard, and a little unusual, that, because I am interested enough to listen through a whole Debate, I should be expected to take part in it, when I am perfectly satisfied with the answer which has been given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government. I really cannot understand what this is all about. Take, for instance, the last dramatic utterance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that it was a Liberal Minister defending his opinion.
  Mr. DEVLIN: An ex-Liberal.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not quite sure that that would not condemn him more. It means that a lawyer who is asked for a legal opinion has got to give that opinion to suit his policy, whether he is a Liberal or a Conservative. I do not think that is right. The other condemnation is that we have not done something which we were not asked to do, and which it would be out of order to do on the Motion which the House is now considering. If a decision was wished for on another point, the Motion could have been made in another form, and had that been done I feel perfectly certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division would have been here, and we should at least have heard his side, of the question. But they chose to put the issue on the clear point, whether or not the Government ought to prosecute my right hon. and learned Friend for what he said. That is the whole point? What do we find in the Debate? We find my right hon. Friend, who is more or less a lawyer—that is really meant as a compliment— more or less on one side. Even though that is a correct definition of the law, it is bad policy. But my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) takes a different view. He is not even less a lawyer, but, like the great Leader of his party, who once said that no one knew the Rules of the House so well as he did because he had broken them all, so, perhaps, my hon. and learned Friend knows the law from the same point of view.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I have broken no laws yet, but it is so profitable I propose to do so?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can say with some confidence to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the law had been strained, as he wishes it to be strained to-day, he would have been prosecuted very many times. I say that nothing could be worse than that the impression should be made that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor, but I put it to my right hon. Friend opposite: What in the world does he mean by this kind of speech 1 I should like to know. His view is that whether this is a legal offence or not, it should be treated as a legal offence. I do ask my right hon. Friend, who has made a good deal of study of history, Is there any blot

  527
  upon the history of Parliament which is more constantly pointed out, and is more deservedly pointed out, than the condemnation of Sir John Fenwick by passing a retrospective Act of Parliament for the punishment of him for something which was not illegal at the time he did it?
  Mr. CLYNES: My answer is that I could cite a number of cases where the Government have taken action and put poor men in gaol because their sayings were an incitement to violence, and they are in prison to-day. I say that the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman incited to violence, and that similar action has not been taken.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not touch my point at all. That is pitting the opinion of my right hon. Friend on a legal question against the opinion of the Law Officers. My point is that if there is a legal offence, if we are advised that there is a chance of condemnation of a legal offence, it is our duty to prosecute. But I say further, though we are advised there is no legal offence, we are told that we should create a legal offence for the purpose of punishment. If that is so, where will it lead? Has my right hon. Friend considered that? My hon. Friend opposite said that you cannot get people to believe there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. I wish he could see a large part of my correspondence. It is not all friendly, and I do not think there is a single day in which I do not receive a great many letters in which I am accused of acting as a member of a Government which has one law for the working classes, which does every thing they want, and which refuses to give similar justice to other classes. Look a little further. It is perhaps perfectly true that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend is of more importance from his point of view because of his influence, but are we really going to make legal prosecutions depend on considerations of that kind? 1 could give many instances where the question is exactly analogous. "We must have a complete revolution in this country"—I read that the other day, and I thought it was very strong and very alarming—" We must have a revolution in this country; we do not want bloodshed, but there must be a revolution." Where is the difference between that and—
  Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask whether, if that man had an army that he was going to call out, you would then have intervened?
  An HON. MEMBER: Mr. Smile!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am thinking of a Gentleman who has a very large army.
  Mr. SHAW: This is playing with the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; it is not. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I think I am not playing with it. If you take the view that this is not a question of law but a question of policy, then I am playing with it. But I say that if the question we have to consider is whether or not the Government should have taken action on it, then we could only have taken action on it if we were advised that it was illegal now, and in no other way. My hon. Friend who spoke last dealt with my share in this kind of speech, and I was rather surprised that it was not referred to earlier. Well, I am not going now—a good many years have passed—to refer to that. I have never thought it worth while to defend it when it has been raised before, but I am going to say something relevant dealing with this particular speech. We may have been wrong or we may have been right, but what we did then, quite clearly, as far as the English and Scottish Unionists were concerned, was to say that the Government of the day were going to drive people out of British citizenship without the authority of the British people. And I said, over and over again, "Have a Parliament which approves of what you do and, so far as I am concerned, all resistance will stop." That is what I said; it may have been right or wrong.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Did the right hon. Gentleman not withdraw that statement afterwards about approving what Parliament had done? It was so reported in the papers.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, I am afraid I did—I am not quite sure I withdrew it so unequivocally as the hon. Member says. But, at all events, this is the point I am going to put. I agree with my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University, a man may be morally justified in breaking the law, but the Government of the day can never be justified in not punishing a man who breaks the law. I say that quite clearly, and I thought at the time, and I

  529
  think I said it, that the contempt of the law at that time was caused, not by our threatening to break it, and I believe at that time—because acts were done which did break it—that the contempt of the law arose, not because we disobeyed it, but because we disobeyed it with impunity. That was where the contempt came in.
  I say now, I am not going, whatever hon. Gentlemen may think I ought to do, on a Motion which does not raise the question at all, to consider it my duty to judge the speech of my right hon. Friend. But I say this, and I said it in answer to a question the other day on the floor of the House, if it came to a question of breaking the law by my right hon. Friend—and as it happens there was no one in political life with whom I was more intimately connected than him, and whatever mistakes he may make I do not believe that he does them from any other motives but what he believes to be right—that is no excuse—I say that nothing could possibly be more painful to me than to take action against him. But I say now to the House that there must be equality in the law, and if we had been advised that he had broken the law I would have said at once that, so far as I was concerned, I had only two
  choices before me, either to have him prosecuted or to resign my position as a member of the Government, and I say to the House of Commons now, You have raised a definite issue. Has my right hon. Friend broken the law? We are advised he has not. If the advice were different, or if it becomes different, the Government must act in his case as it would act in any other case, and I give the promise, so far as I am concerned, that I should either act in that way or I should cease to hold office.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman disapprove of the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not relevant to the Motion before the House.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I be allowed to answer it, Sir? I thought I had. 1 say that I do not think it my duty, on a question which is quite irrelevant, to judge the conduct of my right hon. Friend in his absence.
  Question put, "That the House do now adjourn."
  The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 217.

  Division No. 73.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Hail wood, A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hall, F. (Yorks. Normanton)

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hancock, John George

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Harbison, T. J. S.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Bell, James (Ormskirk)

  Hayday, A.

  Sexton, James

  Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Bentinck, Lt.Cot. Lord H. Cavendish

  Hinds, John

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sitch, C. H.

  Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W

  Hogge, J. M.

  Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Bramsdon. Sir T.

  Johnstone, J.

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander

  Spoor, B. G.

  Briant. F.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Bromfield, W.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

  Cairns, John

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Tootill, Robert

  Coote, Colin R. (lsle of Ely)

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Layton, E.)

  Wallace, J.

  Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

  Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

  Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen),

  Williams, A. (Consett. Durham)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Murray, Or. D. (Western Isles)

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Newbould, A. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

  Donnelly, P.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

  Edge, Captain William

  O'Grady, James

  Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Galbraith. Samuel

  Redmond, Captain William A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  T. Griffiths and Mr. T. Wilson.

  Grundy, T. W.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Blair, Major Reginald

  Ainsworth, Captain C.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F,

  Allen, Col. William James

  Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Archdale, Edward M.

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

  Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Brittain, Sir Harry E.

  Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Britton, G. B.

  Atkey, A. R.

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Baird. John Lawrence

  Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bird, Alfred

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

  Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Philipps, Sir (Chester)

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Hood, Joseph

  Poliock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Campbell, J. G. D.

  Hope, Harry (Stirling)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pratt, John William

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Carr, W. T.

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Casey, T. W.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunter-Weston. Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

  Hurst, Major G. B. J

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Inskip, T. W. H.!

  Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

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

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

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Jesson, C.

  Reid, D. O.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Jodrell, N. P

  Remer, J. B.

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Johnson, L. s.

  Rogers, Sir Hallewell

  Clough, R.

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Roundell, Lieut-Colonel R. F.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Knights, Capt. H.

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Cohen, Major J. B. B.

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

  Seager, Sir William

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

  Seddon, J. A.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

  Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John

  Cooper, Sir lichard Ashmole

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

  Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Stephenson, Coionel H. K.

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cralk, Right Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Croft, Brig.-General Henry Pagi

  Mackinder, Halford i.

  Sugden, W. H.

  Davies, Sir O. S. (Denbigh)

  M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

  Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Maddocks, Henry

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Dockrell, Sir M.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Townley, Maximilan G.

  Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

  Manville, Edward

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Elliott, Lt.Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

  Marriott, John Arthur R.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Mason, Robert

  Vickers D.

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.

  Waddington, R.

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Weston, Colonel John W.

  Fexcroft, Captain C.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

  Gange. E. S.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Whitla, Sir William

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

  Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

  Williams, Lt.-Col. C. (Tavistock)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

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

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Glyn, Major R.

  Neal, Arthur

  Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Gretton, Col. John

  Nicholson, w. (Petersfield)

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Young, Sir F. W (Swindon)

  Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)

  O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.

  Younger, Sir George

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

  Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

  Hanson, Sir Charles

  Parker, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E

  Henderson. Major V. L.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

FINANCE BILL
Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Postponed proceeding resumed on

FINANCE BILL

  New CLAUSE.(Exemption from Estate Duty.)
  No estate duty shall be levied upon an estate passing from a deceased husband to his widow.[Lord Hugh Cecil.]
  Lord H. CECIL: When the Debate was interrupted I was moving a new Clause,
  532
  the purpose of which is to prevent the Estate Duty being levied when an estate passes at the death of a husband to his widow. At this late hour I think I shall consult the wishes of the Committee best by compressing my observations into as small a compass as possible, and I can. state my point in a very few words. The ideal Estate Duty is that you levy the duty upon the heir when he comes into the property and when he is well able to pay the duty that is leviable, but that is conspicuously untrue in the case of a widow. Supposing a professional man or

  533
  a man of business in the enjoyment of a large income which dies with him leaves his wife the savings he has been able to accumulate, he leaves her considerably worse off than she was when he was alive, and she may have to pass from the highest state of comfort to a much lower state. She has to cutdown various comforts and probably to live in a small house. She loses probably a great deal of money by the death of her husband and yet that is the moment when the State comes down to levy taxes upon her on the theoretical hypothesis that she is richer than before, whereas, as a matter of fact, she is worse off. There is another inconsistency I would like to point out. Under the Income Tax Act the incomes of husband and wife were taken together, and as the estate is jointly held it can scarcely be said there is a passage of the property. If a man and wife are to be treated as a fiscal union obviously the death of one does not create a passing of the estate to the other part of the union, Therefore the State is inconsistent in its own theory.
  But I put my objection on the broad ground, mainly, of the great hardship inaicted by the fact that while the tax is levied theoretically on a person who is receiving money it actually works out that it is levied on a person who is losing money. The hardship often is very great indeed, and it is particularly odious at such a moment to have to suffer the tax at a moment when one is forced to undergo the burden of economising as a result of bereavement. I do not know, too, that there is much gain to the Treasury by the enforcement of this duty in such cases. As a rule there is not much difference in age between husband and wife, and the State does not have to wait very long before the estate passes from the wife on her death. Thus the Government are only kept out of the money for a comparatively short time. I suggest that this is precisely one of the cases where the Estate Duty weighs heavily without any compensating advantage to the revenue and, at any rate, if my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to meet me on this point now I would suggest it might be made part of the case to be submitted in the course of inquiry on the operation of the Estate Duty. I hope my right hon. Friend has not forgotten the suggestion I made on the Second Heading of the Bill, that there should be some sort of inquiry into the Death Duties, in the same way as is being done in regard to the Income Tax, in order to see if it be not possible to remove some of the
  534
  hardships arising through present methods of incidence. I repeat this is a conspicuous case when the duty is levied on a person who is becoming not richer but poorer.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend has opened up a very broad subject in a very brief speech, and I am rather puzzled how to deal with it. I need scarcely say that I am unable to accept his Clause. I do not know if it will be any consolation to him if I say that, after all, all taxation is unjust, and you have simply to choose from among many disadvantages. My Noble Friend says, "At any rate give me another Committee or Commission." I do not exclude that for a moment; I only say we are really in danger of getting too many Committees and Commissions, and I have had evidence this afternoon of the impatience of the House when I suggested that the fact that a subject is now beingconsidered by a Commission is a reason for not at once coming to a definite decision on a proposal before the Committee. Simultaneously, I have received an intimation that Commissioners are disturbed because I have dealt with minor details of a subject which they still have under investigation. I do not exclude the idea of a Commission, but I do not welcome it enthusiastically, and I am not quite sure if my Noble Friend thinks the matter over he himself will desire it. As to the Clause itself, I admit there is a primâ facie case in. thefact that for Death Duty purposes you treat husband and wife as two, whereas for ascertaining the rate at which they should be charged you treat their incomes as one, but the proposed Clause is no novelty. It was proposed when Sir William Harcourt first made his great alteration in the Death Duties. It was rejected then. It has been proposed at every stage since, and the House has deliberately chosen to proceed on other lines, and it would be necessary to remodel the whole rates and everything else if you contemplated anything of the kind, because otherwise you would not get the revenue. If you alter the incidence of the tax in such a way that it produces half or three-quarters of the revenue you will have to alter the rate of your tax so as to make good the gap which you create by altering the incidence.
  My Noble Friend and I, however, join issue as to what is the principle on which, the tax is levied. He says it is levied on the accretion of the property to the heir.

  535
  That is not so. It is levied upon property which passes at the death, irrespective of the heir to whom it goes. I do not want to provoke him into an argument which he has several times put forward that taxes are levied on persons and not on chattels. Whatever his economic views may be, that is the principle on which the tax is assessed. It is assessed on the total property passing at death. My Noble Friend's great care is for the widow, and I quite agree that there is a large number of cases where the widow on death, though in law coming into property which she had not enjoyed before her husband's death, is, in fact, in poorer circumstances than she was as long as the husband lived. But I think he will observe the great difficulty of preserving the yield of the Death Duties if you allow the husband to transfer free to his wife all his property on his death or any portion of it. If my Noble Friend's Clause is passed, I leave my property to my wife in the knowledge that she will proceed to distribute it among my children as I shall direct. That is a contingency which my Noble Friend has not contemplated, that the relations between husband and wife in the majority of cases I hope are of that confidential and trustworthy kind that any husband wishing to leave money to his children and to escape duty could with confidence leave it to his wife with the knowledge that she would transfer it immediately afterwards for the benefit of the children. I think that is fatal to my Noble Friend's proposal.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why should my right hon. Friend only trust his wife after he is dead? Why not trust her while he is alive?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do trust her.
  Lord H. CECIL: You can distribute your property while you are alive.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is true. So can anybody. There is nothing in our present law to prevent my Noble Friend divesting himself of all his property tomorrow, and distributing it among his relations.
  Lord H. CECIL: Why bring in the machinery of a wife?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. There is nothing to prevent any of us from divesting ourselves of property during our life-
  536
  time, and so escape payment of duty on that property of which we have divested ourselves three years before our death. By so doing we absolve that property from Death Duties when we die. Being constituted as we are we do not divide all our property among our children. Our children being in many cases young we cannot trust them. We cannot place these responsibilities upon them. The relations between husband and wife are different from the relations between any two other individuals in the world. The relationship of two people happily married is one of absolute confidence, and if the expectation of life of your wife is distinctly better than your own expectation you can give to her property which you do not intend her to enjoy, and which she would not seek to enjoy.
  Question put, and negatived.

  New CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 36 of Finance Act, 1916.)
  Notwithstanding anything contained in Section thirty-six of the Finance Act. 1916. or any enactment relating to Super-tax, there shall be allowed in the assessment for the purpose of such tax and in respect of payments made for life insurance premiums such sum not exceeding one hundred pounds as may appear to have been paid by or upon the life of the person liable to such assessment. —[Sir H. Neld.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir H. NIELD:I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause deals with a small point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remedy what is at present an injustice. Super-tax is in the nature of additional Income Tax, and is governed by Income Tax law. Under the Act, which permitted allowances in respect of premiums upon life insurance, many men effected very large insurances, and were able to deduct very large premiums from their annual income. Gradually the provision was restricted until you could not for Income Tax purposes deduct more than one-sixth of your total income. Super-tax was put on in the Budget of 1909–10. It was then levied only on incomes of £5,000 and upwards, and so. it remained until the Finance Act of 1916, when, under stress of war, the exemption from Super-tax was reduced, until it stands at half the original exemption—namely, £2,500. All incomes of£2,500 and over are called on to bear not only 6s. in the£Income Tax, but Super-tax appropriate to the amount, and while for the purposes of Income Tax

  537
  you can still deduct premiums on insurance to the extent of one-sixth of your income, for some reason it was thought desirable in 1916 to abolish all relief in respect of premiums on life insurance in relation to Super-tax. This has operated very harshly during the War, when incomes were reduced so enormously by this high Income Tax and the Super-tax, and the increased cost of living. When these taxes are paid you have got to halve the residue to get the pre-war value of the net income. Then the capital now secured by a policy of life insurance comes in for Death Duties. Therefore you are doubly taxing a fund on which you ultimately get Death Duty. It is a matter of considerable importance to deny for the purposes of Super-tax the insurance premium, whatever it be, whether big or little, and you penalise these relatively small incomes, because men who lived before the War at a certain standard, find now, when the Income Tax and Super-tax are levied, considerable difficulty in maintaining the same standard of life, and therefore these payments are of considerable importance, and all these burdens, with local rates advancing and the concessions that have to be made to labour, are piling up a burden of debt which is beyond endurance. I hope, therefore, that the proposed new Clause will be accepted.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The subject raised by my hon. Friend has been raised on several occasions before. It has been the subject of decisions by the House after hearing—
  Sir H. NIELD: Was the question of limitations introduced?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After hearing arguments by my predecessors, my hon. Friend now asks to have these decisions in part reversed. I am sorry that I cannot accept his proposal. The present arrangement is something in the nature of a compromise. Policies of insurance with a rising rate of Income Tax and Super-tax were being used, not as an insurance against death or a contingency of that kind, but to insure against Income Tax and Super-tax. The actual position of the law now is something in the nature of a compromise. I venture to say one word more. I think my hon. Friend has chosen an unfortunate moment for asking for an extension of relief in respect of the provision made for Death Duties. There is an unrivalled means of provision for Death
  538
  Duties in the VictoryLoan. Insurance-companies have issued statements giving the conditions. I could not possibly consider a further proposal in respect of such matters. It is a very great concession to those to whom such considerations would apply to allow Victory Bonds which are subscribed at £85 to be received for Death Duties at £100.
  Sir H NIELD: Surely my right hon. Friend is confusing two matters which are absolutely distinct. The question of the provision for Death Duties has nothing to-do with the annual provision that a man must make in his life. I should like my right hon. Friend to be a little more explicit about the compromise. I think he was not occupying the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. My recollection does not bear out the statement that there was any definite compromise with regard to life premiums. Until that time all premiums were liable to be deducted up to one-sixth of the income for Income Tax as for Super-tax. Then the Government took it into its head to impose for the first time Super-tax upon payments which had already been made. I cannot accept the answer. My right hon. Friend must forgive me, but I think that by introducing the matter of Victory Bonds and Death Duties he has avoided the point.
  Question put, and negatived.
  New Clauses—["Amendment of Section 8 (12) of Finance Act, 1894," and "Exclusion from Computation of Property Passing at Death of Capital Sums Payable under Certain Insurance Policies"]—stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. EVELYN CECIL.
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the right hon. Member for Aston, must be an. Amendment to another Clause. I call upon him, however, to move his second Amendment.
  Mr. E. CECIL: With regard to the second Amendment, I will content myself to-night with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said and let the matter stand over for the present. I should like, however, to express the hope that he will in future give the proposal contained in the Amendment his very serious consideration. I think it is one for which a very strong case could be made out. I do not propose to move it now.

  New CLAUSE.—(Exemption from Income Tax of Imperial Overseas Produce.)
  A non-resident British-Indian, Dominion, or Colonial firm or company shall not be chargeable to Income Tax in respect of any profits or gains arising from the sale wholesale in the United Kingdom of the produce of British India or of any British Dominion or Colony.—[Mr. A. Shaw]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I would like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. We are now engaged upon some extremely important new Clauses, and it is after 11.30 at night. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to report Progress, so that we might continue the discussion of these—which would not take a very long time—under much more favourable circumstances and with more justice to the House.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very sorry. My desire is not to discuss these questions at this time, but it is in the recollection of the Committee that we came to an agreement to finish this stage to-night. It was then anticipated that we should finish at a reasonable hour. It was an agreement made in the face of the House. The Adjournment Motion has interfered, and our deliberations are necessarily more prolonged than we anticipated. My hon. Friend must not hold me responsible for that. I must ask the Committee to take this Bill now.
  Mr. SHAW: The proposal which was made and the agreement which was arrived at proceeded on the assumption that two full Parliamentary days would be available, and that has not been the case. The object of this new Clause is to remove a very serious interference with inter-Imperial trade. It deals, and deals only, with the position of non resident firms in other parts of the Empire so far as it concerns the sale of their products in the market of the Mother Country. What is the present position of, say, a purely Canadian business firm which sends produce to the London market? It may prefer to send its produce here rather than across the boundary to the United States, and to take in return a cargo of British goods rather than a return load from the United States. If it so prefers, every inducement should be held out to it to pursue that course, and
  540
  not every impediment put in its way as is at present being done. In order to establish a regular course of business such a firm will naturally employ a reputable firm of agents in this country to act for it in the disposal of its produce here. It is to the advantage of inter-Imperial trade that there should be such a regular channel. Supposing a Canadian firm employs regular agents and such a regular channel of Imperial trade is opened up. This is what the right hon. Gentleman's servants are doing for the first time in the history of this country in this year 1919. The tax gatherer comes down and demands 6s. in the £ on the gains which the overseas firm has made for its shareholders on the sale of its produce here. That is being done under cover of Section 31 (2) of the Finance Act (No. 2), 1915, which reads as follows:
  "A non-resident person shall be chargeable in respect of any profits or gains arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any branch, factor ship, agency, receivership, or management, and shall be so chargeable, under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, as amended by this Section, in the name of the branch, factor, agent, receiver or manager."
  The effect of that Sub-section is that if the Colonial firm chooses out a well-established and respectable agency house in the City of London, and through it sets up a regular course of business with this country, it is going at once to be penalised for doing so. If our cousins across the seas wish to trade with this country any longer, they have got to choose out irregular channels. They have got to avoid setting up regular channels. If, under another Sub-section of the same Section that I have read out, they go to brokers or commission agents, they escape scot-free. The great inducement, therefore, is not to go to this market, but to some other market in some other country. Sub-section (6) of the same Section in the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1915, clearly lays down, that if they put the business, not through regular agents, but through commission agents or brokers, they escape scot-free. I venture to think that is an almost unbelievable anomaly, and the seriousness of it has not been appreciated by business people until within the last few weeks, when attempts have been made to bring it into operation. It is true that Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1918, gives to the regular agent the option of paying Income Tax on the profits which he would have made if he had

  541
  not been an agent at all, but had been a merchant buying and selling produce on his own account.
  The whole tendency is to damage this country as a regular market for Imperial produce, and at the same time throw out of business altogether well-established agency concerns by making it a disadvantage for firms in the Colonies or India to employ them at all. The market of this country used to be the great entrepÔt of the world, and even if those days are past, I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees we ought to try to make it remain the great enter pot of Imperial trade. At this very moment various Income Tax assessors in the country, acting, it may be, on instructions from headquarters, are imposing in new and, I venture to think, hitherto unheard-of directions a perfectly terrible form of new double Income Tax within the Empire—a line of policy which, if the House of Commons allows it to be pressed, will drive the produce of the Colonies, the Dominions and India more and more to other markets, which at the present time are only too ready to receive it, and which will most seriously raise the cost of our own Imperial produce to the consumers of this country. The amount of money which the Exchequer will gain by this tax is very little. It is a mere pittance in comparison with the damage which my right hon. Friend will cause to vital Imperial trade interests, which, I say quite sincerely, I know he has really at heart. I would like to give an example of this new procedure by a Government which, we have to remember, is committed to Imperial Preference. It has given a preference to Indian tea, unasked and uninvited by the growers of Indian tea. But there is another side to the picture. Here is a letter from the Inland Revenue to a very eminent firm. I have nothing to do with this firm nor any personal interest in it, and it does not matter to me whether it is this way or the other. The letter is dated 30th May this year, and is to an eminent firm in the City who act as agents for a native Indian tea company with native Indian shareholders out in India. It says:
  "Gentlemen, it would appear that by virtue of the Articles of Association," you hold the position of London agents of this company, for the purpose of the sale of tea in London, etc. It would therefore appear that the profits derived in this country for such sales are assessable in your name."
  That is, they want to tax this Indian company in the name of the agents.
  542
  "I shall be glad therefore if you will let me have the particulars of the amount of the sales elected by you from the 18th January,1918, to the 5th April, 1918, and from that date to the 5th April, 1919, or for any other period for which particulars are ascertainable by you, and also particulars as to the cost of production, etc., of this tea, in connection with which I shall be glad to nave the accounts of the company."
  As far as any of the profits of this Indian tea company come to share holders in this country, they are taxed. As far as the agents commission is concerned, they pay taxation to the full upon that. This is an attempt to get behind the agents at the company, and to tax the native shareholders of an Indian company and the Canadian shareholders of a Canadian company. At this moment the native shareholders in India are faced with an extension of the Income Tax in that country which will be imposed on their undertakings, and, of course, rather than submit to this new and hitherto unheard-of form of double Income Tax within the Empire, which will wipe out the fund which is available for the extension of their gardens in India, they will cast longing eyes at that other great market of Europe—1 mean Amsterdam, which is the really serious competitor with London for the leadership of this business throughout the world, and where they can employ a regular agency to carry on business without the disadvantages rapidly becoming associated with the regular course of business in the Motherland by Canadian or by Indian firms. Or. instead of doing a regular business here, they may do a hand-to-mouth business through brokers and commission agents. If they do that under this extra ordnary piece of hasty war-time legislation, they get off scot-free, and the business will drift into the hands of those clever foreigners who are always hanging about the market to pick up this class of business. I am told the Germans are experts at this, and we are driving the business of our own Colonies out of the hands of regular agents into the hands of all sorts of other people.
  I venture to suggest that this is a most serious menace to Imperial trade. I do not think there has been anything quite so serious as this since the transactions which resulted in the loss of the American Colonies. When the Empire at large wakens up to the fact that now, in 1919, for the first time since those black years of the eighteenth century, a deadly blow is being aimed at purely Colonial businesses in an entirely new direction, a great deal of the fine effect which has been

  543
  produced by the War will be taken away and Preference will be seen to be a sham and a hollow mockery. Not that the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that. He was kind enough to see me about this matter the other day, and I thanked him for his courtesy. His reply to me then was, as it will be tonight, that although he was sympathetic there was an Income Tax Commission sitting—we have heard a good deal about that Commission. When will it report This thing is being started now. for the first time, and it may be too late to avert the consequences of this deadly blow to our Imperial commerce, unless the Committee insists on putting into this Bill a provision which will safeguard, at any rate for the next financial year, the advantages of the existing situation. Now more than at any other time, we require to have the channels of our Imperial trade broad and deep and clearly marked. We ought not to choke and block those channels; we ought not to thwart and divert the stream of our Imperial trade. What is the use, I ask my right hon. Friend, of giving paper preference to the Imperial Dominions, if at that very moment the servants of the Government are engaged in a new campaign against Colonial businesses which have had the temerity, through regular agents, to open Imperial trade with the Mother Country? The Chancellor of the Exchequer invites them to send their products here—and I do not doubt for a moment that he is perfectly sincere—but when they come here and they set up their businesses through regular agents, his minions warn them off the course. We shall be told that there is an Income Tax Commission sitting and the Government, in the face of this injustice, in favour of which they cannot argue, are going to shield themselves behind this Commission. If the matter is sub-judice, why do not they keep their servants from launching, at this moment, a new attack against overseas businesses? If it is sub-judice for us let it be sub-judice for them, and if they cannot accept this Clause, let them give us an undertaking that the status quo, at any rate, will be preserved until the Income Tax Commission have had a chance of considering the very serious results to Imperial trade which will flow from the course of action which is now being taken by the assessors.
  I venture to think that this matter is urgent, and that the House of Commons,
  544
  as well as the Income Tax Commission, has a right to be heard on it. We ought not to pass this Finance Bill into law tonight without some provision or undertaking which will secure that, at any rate, for the period of the next financial year, the trade of the Empire shall still flow in un choked and clear channels, and not be blocked, disturbed, and dissipated by a form of taxation which has nothing to commend it, and the proceeds of which can bear no relation whatever to the amount of damage which will be done to our Imperial trade, and I venture to add, also, to our own reputation for fair play.
  Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I rise to support, in a few words, the Clause moved by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I do not intend, at this late hour, to take up time by referring to inter-Imperial trade, and I only wish to draw attention to two points in connection with this. In the first place, unless we have this new Clause in a great deal of damage will be done to the agencies here in London, and I believe that a good many shipping firms abroad will either be unable or unwilling to send their goods here to our British market. The hon. Member who spoke last said that it was quite possible for a shipper abroad to send his goods through a broker, and that they could be sold and no Income Tax charged; but if he sent his goods to an agent, and the agent sold them, then about one-third of the profit was taken by the Government. Some people may say. "Why not send them to a broker," but the London agent and the British agent has done far more for our British trade than many people imagine. The shipper abroad wants an agent here in London, not only for the money that he frequently advances, and which he frequently gets from the bank for the shipper abroad, but also for the advice which that agent here in London gives to the shipper, and telling him where stuff is needed and when it should be shipped. I hope nothing will be done to injure the London agent in carrying on this business. If shippers have no London agent they frequently experience difficulty in financial and other directions. It is often the case that it is only because they can draw on their London agents that they are able to get their cargoes together If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is afraid that these agents may act as retainers and sell the goods in a way which will enable avoidance of the

  545
  payment of Income Tax, I say by all means charge the Income Tax on everything that is sold retail. This Clause says distinctly there is to be no Income Tax on the goods sold wholesale. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has a very keen interest in all that concerns Colonial trade, will see his way to accept this Amendment.
  12.0.p. m.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I was one of those who took part in the Debate in 1915 when the Clause, which has been spoken of to-night, was introduced and brought in this new policy. It was, if I remember rightly, directed chiefly against meat companies, and as stated by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was a tax on meat, who invoiced the meat at prices which left no profits to the shippers and thereby escaped any contribution. I pointed out at the time that the wording of the Clause was most unfortunate and would seriously affect the position of this country in its international trade—trade not only with our Colonies but with all countries, because such trade was largely done through the appointment of regular agents in this country. The value of these agencies here was not perhaps fully appreciated by those who took part in the Debate on that occasion. The value of a regularly established agent here greatly affects the insurance underwriting and banking aspects of the business, and secures preferential treatment for British buyers instead of allowing the business to go to foreigners. The value of the agencies is undoubted. But what will happen no doubt will be that our friends in the Colonies will not willingly pay Income Tax here on the profits of the produce they send over. They will take steps to avoid paying it, and it will not be very difficult to do so. In the first place they can sell through a broker. There is another way: they can sell the goods f.o.b. in foreign ports—German, Belgian and French, and then our market will lose its position and the trade will go to other countries. This is a very important matter indeed, but it becomes almost ludicrous in the light of appeals that are constantly made to us business men to establish ourselves all over the world—to establish agencies here and there to promote British trade. While you are making these appeals to us you are penalising people who establish agencies here. You seem to forget altogether the possibility of the retaliation which is
  546
  sure to follow and which indeed has already come in the United States, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no doubt aware. It is a most dangerous policy for this country to pursue—to try and tax profits on goods—profits which though technically made here is really made in the country where the goods are produced. It is totally unreasonable to tax these profits thus in view of the fact that the agent already pays Income Tax on his commission. It is said that the amount of the tax is qualified by reasonable merchandising, and even though it may be it is difficult to convince people of the justice of this method of taxation. But the Commission agent pays this tax already upon his commission! I regard this matter as a very serious one. All that the revenue will get is a very small sum indeed, because there will be means of deduction and of evading payment, and the injury done to the establishment of regular agencies here, and thereby continuing our position as the market of the world, will be a very serious matter indeed. I have said so before in this House, and I am pleased therefore to support this proposed new Clause.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am astounded at the speech of my right hon. Friend who knows the working of these Clauses. I am surprised that he does not appreciate more clearly what is the effect of the proposal that he supports. It has been a principle of Income Tax ever since its establishment that the liability for it attaches to the profits or gains accruing to any person whether British subject or non-resident in the United Kingdom from any property whatever in the United Kingdom or from any trade, profession, employment or vocation exercised in the United Kingdom. As time went on people found they could so adjust their business that the profit was not made here, and that they could evade the basic principle of the Act. It was for that reason that the charge to which my right hon. Friend has alluded to was made. He asks us to reverse it as a matter of consequence to the entrepot trade and particular sections of merchants. If there is any change required it is not to relieve the merchants, but to adjust the tax. Then as to the foreign company trade in this country in an article that is also manufactured here that—
  Mr. SHAW: In connection with limited and foreign companies may I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that this proposal is confined for the time being to the Dominion and Colonial Governments?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to my hon. Friend; he is more of an Imperial preferential list than I am—a very sad position ! His Clause is confined to the Dominions; the result will be to place the company established in the Dominions and producing or manufacturing an article which is also produced or manufactured here at home in a position of preference as compared with the home manufacturer— a preference that cannot be given either to the home manufacturer or producer. Those of us who are oldest in the cause of Imperial Preference never suggested that the Dominions producer should be put in a better position than the home producer. That would be the effect of the Clause. I have no doubt the Amendment made by Mr. McKenna was necessary to prevent the evasion of the tax by the non-resident companies.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The British merchant is not interested. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to those in Canada, I agree.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood my hon. Friend to Bay that it was the merchants here who were interested.
  Mr. SHAW: This is something entirely new. The regular agent is hit, because it puts a premium on taking business from him and diverts it to irregular channels.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what my right hon. Friend denies.
  Mr. SHAW: The agent; not the merchant.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I may be mistaken about that point. My hon. Friend says that the tendency of the change is to divert business from the regular agent to a broker. I think there is something in that, but that is because transactions passing through a broker escape taxation, while transactions in the same article produced at home do not escape. If a Royal Commission or anybody else could find a remedy, I should welcome it, but this Clause would give a preference to the Dominion producer over the home producer. There are three possible profits—the producers', the wholesalers', and the retailers'
  548
  profit. In all these cases arising in this country they are taxed, but arising out of this country they are not taxed.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: In regard to that the right hon. Gentleman has said about the home producer, I would point out that, if this proposal were carried out, you are overlooking the fact that the Colonial producer has his own Income Tax to pay, and any profits made by the sale of his produce here will go into the profits of his own Colony and he will have to pay Income Tax there. Consequently, if he is charged here and in the Colony as well, he is paying a double Income Tax.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is not a question of raising the double Income Tax. That point has been submitted to the Royal Commission.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Colonial producer pays Income Tax in the Colony no matter where his produce goes to, and if he sends it here he is also taxed on it here. This is a hindrance in the way of Colonial trade. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was introducing his proposals for Colonial Preference he spoke almost as if tears were pouring down his face; this policy, however, seems to suggest that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek. The Clause which my hon. Friend has proposed would do away with a great injustice; and, unless it is adopted, the trade in Colonial produce will all be done through the penny post. The Colonial producer will do anything to escape Income Tax; this country will lose the trade, and the bonds of Imperial Preference will to a great, extent be severed. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should persist in opposing this Clause. It is the stiffness and stubbornness of the permanent official, I should say, that is behind the opposition, but I know my right hon. Friend has nothing but good feeling for Colonial producers. T hope, therefore, he will seize this great chance.
  Mr. STEWART:I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision. It came to my knowledge, in a certain inquiry in which I took part recently, that the Germans particularly are evading this tax—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend will forgive me. It was because of the evasion of thi3 tax that Mr.McKenna made this change, but it can hardly be said the Germans are evading it, because we have been at war with them ever since.
  Mr. STEWART: They sold at an apparent loss in order to evade it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider how this affects our Colonial and Indian friends. Is it not calculated to introduce elements of dishonesty in trade? It might even be possible to deduct the British Income Tax on the other side in the invoices, and thus get out of paying it.
  Mr. NEAL: Is the question of Colonial Preference involved in this at all? is not that, in fact, an evasion of the issue? There can only be a question of preference, if at all, to the extent to which the English taxation differs from the Colonial taxation. If the producer in the Colony pays a tax equivalent to 6s. in the £, and is called upon again here to pay a like amount, you have at once double taxation; if you avoid it here you have equal taxation—that is to say, the goods are taxed 6s. in the Colonies, and home producers' goods are taxed 6s. here. I should have thought there was no question of Colonial Preference at all. As I conceive it, this duty is open to attack on a much more serious ground than that—namely, that it is liable to deprive the British market of goods from the British Colonies and drive them into other markets. Surely we cannot afford to have that! We had better lose a little in taxation than cease to have the chief market in the world.
  Mr. INSKIP: I should have thought this was exactly one of the appeals to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have listened, because it would not tend to decrease the yield from the tax, as so many of the requests which have been made would do. The tendency of the tax will be to diminish itself in course of time here. It will drive trade elsewhere, or else induce Colonial firms to sell outright instead of selling through their regular agents. My hon. Friend appealed to the Chancellor to instruct the Treasury not to press the matter pending the decision of the Income Tax Commission. If it has been submitted to them for consideration and report, it is only reasonable at this time that it should not be pressed, and the tax should not be collected until it has been reported on, and the House possibly may have a further opportunity of considering it.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Stewart) hit the right nail on the head when he suggested that the imposition of the tax would be to de-
  550
  prive us of necessary materials. The goods that are sent to us from the Colonies are not, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest, as a rule, manufactured goods competing with home manufacturers. They are raw materials out of which our manufacturers make the incomes which pay taxes to the Exchequer. But apart from that, surely at this time we are not really engaged in local reconstruction. We are endeavouring to reconstruct and strengthen the Empire, and can we do it better than by removing obstacles to the consignment of Empire products to this country? There are being set up in all parts of the Empire concerns owned and managed by non-residents in this country, and they are not only willing, but anxious, to send their materials—mainly raw materials—to this country, and we distribute them, and in many cases re-export them. We do what is called this entrepot trade, and surely we ought to put no obstacle in the way of these goods coming to this country; and as this tax is an obstacle, I should very much like to support the Clause. This does not apply to retail, but to wholesale trades—wholesale consignments coming to this country for next year, employing our shipping and our labour. It would be a very great mistake to insist upon this tax, because apart from the revenue you aid, you would lose much more.
  Sir F. YOUNG: I was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that this had no relation to double Income Tax. I think it has a very close relation, because if the statements made to-night are correct—I do not think they have been challenged from the Treasury Bench—that this produce, and it is mainly produce, is taxed in that part of the Empire in which it is produced and also taxed here, it is subject to that evil which is commonly called double Income Tax, and that is a very serious evil. If we take Australia as an instance, we know that this produce can be taxed to the extent of 10s. in the £including Federal and State taxes, to say nothing of the special taxes on the land out there, and having come here and been sold through an agent it is taxed 6s. in the That is, obviously, a case of double Income Tax, and must prejudice this country as the grand marketing centre of the Empire. The question is whether we are to encourage the merchants throughout the Empire to sell through well-established agents here is one which can be looked at from the point

  551
  of view of the Empire merchant in the Colonies, who is much better served by having an agent who acts upon a continuous policy, and is able to maintain a continuous supply of advice to the merchant or producer abroad. You come to the point where that agent becomes of great use to this country by reason of his trade knowledge, by means of which knowledge he is able to act as a medium for distributing the manufactured goods of this country. The trade of the Colonies is maintained to a very large extent owing to the merchants or agents in this country who have a knowledge of the Dominions, and have trade connections with the Dominions. It is a notorious fact that owing to the War a great deal of trade which this country had with the Dominions has for the time being lapsed, and we have to gain that trade back again. We are in very severe competition with America in particular as regards some of our Dominion trade. We are glad to know that there is a general disposition for people in the Colonies to revert to trade with the Mother Country, but it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that the competition from abroad is very severe. Among the best factors we have for regaining that trade and maintaining it are the merchants of this country, who have an intimate knowledge of the Dominions, and have well-established trade connections. To destroy those connections by taxation which cannot produce a very great amount of revenue is bad policy. If we cannot get a satisfactory reply now from the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is a matter worthy of the closest and most sympathetic attention of the Government in the interests of Imperial trade connections.
  Major LOWTHER: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock appears to me to make out a very strong case in favour of this Clause. When listening to the right hon. Gentleman I thought that he would resist it from two points of view. One was that this Clause would effect a serious reduction in revenue, and the other was that exemption from Income Tax in this particular respect would be an injustice to the resident. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not gather that he put forward either of these reasons for resisting this Clause.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I advanced the argument that the resident would be taxed more than the non-resident.
  Major LOWTHER: It appeared to me-that his argument in that respect was fully countered by the hon. Gentleman who-responded to him afterwards. We do not want in any way to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman in the collection of the revenue, but I would appeal to him to consider between now and the Report stage whether he cannot meet the wise, legitimate, and reasonable request of those hon. Members who support the Clause.
  Mr. SHAW: Personally, I am delighted that while it will go out to all the wide-flung. Dominions of the Crown to-morrow morning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way on a point which will not cost the revenue a penny, and refuses-to stay the hand of those who are trying to assassinate the carrying on of regular Imperial trade, yet every Member of the British House of Commons who has spoken on the subject has spoken against the Chancellor and has condemned his proposal. I am sorry if I have said anything that is un parliamentary. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, pardon me if in the heat of the moment I have indulged in anything of the kind. Nothing was further from my mind. He is the last man in the House of whom I desire to say anything discourteous. But if a Colonial firm sells its produce direct (here to a wholesaler it escapes, while, on the other hand, if it employs a regular agent here, and we make a bit more from the produce in this country, it is hit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer twitted me with being a better preferential list than he is. I am not sure of that. He regards it as unfair to-Great Britain that Imperial produce should be sold here under the conditions which have been in force up to this moment as regards the wheat of Canada or the tea of India, because of some mysterious method of competition with those who are in. trade in this country who have to pay the higher rate of interest. I think that it would be for the benefit of this country that the produce of this country and the produce of the Dominions should flow in here untrammelled, but the right hon. Gentleman favours this new tax upon Canadian wheat because it may come into competition with British wheat. There is no British tea with which Indian tea can compete, and we want both British wheat and Canadian wheat, and I am very much sur-

  553
  prised that the Government while taking down duties as against the Colonies and the Dominions yet insists on redressing the balance by putting up barriers of a far more insurmountable description against the very people whom it is proposed to benefit. I feel so strongly on this matter that I intend to go to a Division, and I hope the Members of the Committee who feel that we have not been so fairly treated as is the wont of the Chancellor, that we have not had our arguments answered, and that, without sacrificing our revenue, we ought to prevent this new and serious

  NEW CLAUSE—(Allowance of claims for Relief.)
  In Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-seven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the Sub-section shall read as though fourteen days were substituted for forty days. — [Major Newman.]
  Brought up, and read the first time
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Section 27 of the Income Tax of 1918 deals with the case of a person claiming exemption, abatement, or relief under these provisions of the Act, and Sub-section (3) of the Section lays it down as a Regulation that if the surveyor does not, within forty days after the assessment or within
  injustice being done to the Colonies, will go into the Division Lobby with me.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to prolong the Debate. I want the Committee to come to a decision as soon as possible, but I desire to say that I cannot recognise the account of my speeches or the facts of the situation as given by my hon. Friend.
  Question put,

  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 76.

  Division No. 74.]

  AYES.

  12.32 a.m.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Neal, Arthur

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Gretton, Col. John

  Newbould, A. E.

  Hood, Joseph

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Inskip, T. w. H.

  Redmond, Captain William A.

  A. Shaw and Sir A. Shirley Benn.

  Johnstone, J.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Foxcroft, Captain C.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

  Ainsworth, Captain C.

  Gange, E. S.

  Parker, James

  Allen, Col. William James

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Archdale, Edward M.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic, Loughboro')

  Remer, J. B.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hennessy, Major G.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Bird, Alfred

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Seager, Sir William

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Sexton, James

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Campton, Colonel W. R.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Carr, W. T.

  Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Blrm,, W.)

  Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Hunt'don)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Townley, Maximllan G.

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Ward-Jackson, Major c. L.

  Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

  M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Edge, Captain William

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  such further time as the Commissioner with just cause may allow, take exception to the claim, then the claim shall be allowed. My point is that forty days is too long a period to give the surveyor in which he is to make his objection. It means that a man or a woman claiming abatement or any repayment of tax is kept for forty days, if the surveyor so wills it, waiting for the surveyor to make up his mind whether he shall make objection or not. To my mind that is far too long. Already those who claim the repayment of Income Tax or abatements are kept out of their money for six months, or it may be a year. I rather gathered that the

  555
  right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised me in reply to a question I put to him a few days ago that he is going to make these repayments quarterly instead of half-yearly or yearly as they used to be. If that is the case, I hope he will also in this case reduce the period from forty days to fourteen days. It is my view that forty days is too long; fourteen days will be a reasonable time for the surveyor to make up his mind whether he will make an objection or not.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am sorry I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's proposed new Clause. I have had no evidence at all that any grievance has been felt on the point raised among the general body of taxpayers. I am certain that the Committee will recognise that, having regard to the enormous number of claims, the necessary careful examination of them, and the correspondence sometimes involved, the period of forty days is by no means excessive. I do not think it would be possible to deal with the mass of work that is involved in the full examination of these claims in such a short period without very largely increasing the staff. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Member has suggested, that there have been in recent years delays in dealing with these claims. But I would point out that no service has suffered more during the War in the performance of its work than the staff of the Inland Revenue, for the simple reason that the work is very technical, very highly skilled, and that the Department had to send away, under the quota due for military service, a large proportion of men who were absolutely irreplaceable. The great delays my hon. and? gallant Friend has complained about will come to an end. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) has made a very proper concession, having regard to the high rate of Income Tax, in arranging for a more frequent repayment, but I am afraid it will be impossible to give effect to my hon. and gallant Friend's desire by lessening the time and agreeing to a time which would be insufficient for the working of the Tax.
  Question put, and negatived.

  New CLAUSE—(Entertainment Duty.)
  On and after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and nineteen, Section one of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916 as amended
  556
  by Section three of the Finance Act, 1917, and Section eleven of the Finance Act, 1918 shall have effect as if for the words —

  "exceeds 4d. and does not exceed. 7d.

  two pence."

  there were substituted the words—

  "exceeds 4d. and does not exceed 4½d.

  one penny and a halfpenny

  exceeds 4½d. and does not exceed 7d.

  two pence."

  —[Mr.Newbould]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. NEWBOULD: I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I believe this Clause has been accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I formally move it in order to take the opportunity of thanking him for the consideration he has given to the matter. I thank him on behalf of the industry for the concession, which will be greatly appreciated by the industry, without, I think, causing much loss of revenue to the Exchequer. I can very well forgive him refusing something smaller.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the suggestion the hon. Member has made is an improvement. The revenue will lose no money; the owners of these picture palaces will be enabled to arrange the prices of their seats more conveniently, and I think he has hit on a happy solution with which everyone will be satisfied. I agree to the Clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause accordingly read a second time and added to the Bill.

  New CLAUSE. —(Penalties in Case of Evasion.)
  Any brewer or retailer of beer in Great Britain or Ireland who shall transfer or endeavour to transfer to a customer or a licensed victualler the whole or any part of the increased duty imposed by Section five of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, proof that the price of the beer supplied as aforesaid has been in fact increased since the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be primâ facie evidence that the brewer or retailer has transferred, or endeavoured to transfer, the whole or some part of the increased duty, and thereupon the onus of proof shall be cast upon the brewer or retailer to satisfy the Court that the increased price charged is due to some cause which has no relation to the increased duty. — [Mr. Hohler.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Clause is a very simple one—
  Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. Is this the Clause about beer?
  Mr. HOHLER: Yes.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Then I think it is not in order. It is not within the scope of the Bill at all. The duty imposed upon beer is a duty based on the retail price of beer, and there is no question whatever as to any imposition on one special class without a reduction. If this particular Clause is allowed a charge would be imposed which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not propose at all. It is quite beyond the scope of the Bill to propose it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I cannot see that there would be a charge imposed by this Clause.
  An HON. MEMBER: A penalty.
  Mr. HOHLER: I quite understand that my hon. Friend and the trade will oppose this Clause; of course they will; I fully expected them to. I was asked if I proposed to withdraw it, and I said, "Certainly not; I propose to move it."
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I would ask for a ruling on this point. The penalty has nothing to do with it. I say that no hon. Member is entitled to propose a charge, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has not proposed, in one particular Section of this Bill.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not hold that this is imposing an additional charge.
  Mr. HOHLER: No.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It is.
  Mr. HOHLER: It does not really impose a charge. I quite agree that the best way of trying to get rid of it is not to have it discussed. At any rate, I am now in order in moving it. The object of the Clause is, under a very severe penalty of £100, to prevent the brewer or any retailer of beer from transferring the increased duty to the consumer. I venture to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it. I object to the brewer putting the increased duty on the retailer and on the licensed victualler. My objection to this whole procedure is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in announcing the increased tax which he proposed to put on beer, told us in the clearest terms that
  558
  the brewers have made a very good profit, and that he proposed to take a part of it. Thereupon he further told us that this new tax should not be transferred to the consumer. In the Finance Act there is no Clause which secures it. I have observed in, the newspapers that, under, I suppose, D.O.R.A., or some Regulation which exists, they are proposing, in regard to the person who buys a glass of beer at the public-house, that he shall not pay the increased price. That does not cover the point at all. What are the brewers doing? They cannot put up the price as against the man who buys his glass of beer at a public-house bar, but they can do so against their own licence holders, and they can transfer their tax to them. The most important thing is with regard to the clubs of the country. Every workmen's club is hit by this; the brewers have transferred the whole tax to them.
  Colonel GRETTON: What evidence has the hon. and learned Gentleman of that statement, that the practice has been general, or, indeed, that it has been carried out at all?
  Mr. HOHLER: Now that my hon. and gallant Friend has interrupted, he shall hear the whole of the case. I will tell the Committee exactly what happened. I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman in conversation how unjust this was, and that I had put down this Clause. He came and asked me if I intended to move it, and I said I did. He asks what is my evidence. This is the evidence, from the brewers in Kent. One notice was issued on 12th May, another on 10th May, and a third also on 10th May. There is also another notice, issued by another brewer, in Kent Here is one of their notices. I do not want to advertise any particular firm gratuitously, but I shall be pleased to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the evidence. The notice is as follows:
  "12th May, 1919.

BUDGET, 1919.

  CASK BEER.
  Dear Sir— In order to meet the increased Beer Duties we have decided, on and after 12th May, to invoice our beers as follows:

  4d. per pint, pale ale, No. 2

  …

  72s.

  5d. per pint, pale ale, No. 2

  …

  88s."

  The old price was 68s., and they have put the whole tax on the customer. I should say that the only benefit they have given the clubs is a 5 per cent. discount, so it is

  559
  not quite true to say that they have transferred the whole tax to them, but they have transferred 19s. out of the £1.
  "Both qualities will be brewed at the highest gravity allowed in order to comply with the Regulations.
  Will you kindly inform us which quality of ale you require us to send you."
  Anything more in defiance of the Chancellor's intentions it is difficult to conceive. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Clause. It has gone out all over the country, and to the workmen's clubs, that this is a tax which the brewers are to pay, and that it is not to be transferred to the public. Every club throughout the country will say, "The first thing the brewers have done is to transfer this to the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he was going to prevent this, and he has allowed it. He has taken no step to prevent it, and we have to pay this tax." This is one of those things which will create profound unrest. I think the policy of the brewers has been exceedingly foolish, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to stop it. He can do so most effectively by this simple Clause.
  We are told about the profits. I would not have said these things if the brewers did not do these things, but all the brewers in this country, throughout the War, have made a splendid profit. Breweries which were in the gutter are up again and have made fine dividends. They are not content with that; they will get an increase on their beer which will give them a bigger profit, and they are going to transfer this tax, either partly or wholly, to the licensed victualler, and wholly to the clubs. What the Liquor Board are going to do for prevention in this matter is wholly inadequate. My Clause is perfectly simple, and the brewers and the legal fraternity will find a great deal of difficulty in geting out of it. It says:
  " Any brewer or retailer of beer in Great Britain or Ireland who shall transfer or en deavour to transfer to a customer or a licensed victualler the whole or any part of the increased duty imposed by Section five of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds—"
  I go on to show how that case can be proved—
  "proof that the price of the beer supplied as aforesaid has been in fact increased since the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be primâ facie evidence that the brewer or retailer has transferred, or en-
  560
  deavoured to transfer, the whole or some part of the increased duty, and thereupon the onus of proof shall be cast upon the brewer or retailer to satisfy the Court that the increased price charged is due to some cause which has no relation to the increased duty."
  If that Clause become law, I think that there will be no transfer of this tax. There will be nothing to increase the unrest which has been created. We have paid a big price for miserable stuff long enough. Now we are going to have an increased tax to take away a part of their profit, and I protest against its being in any way transferred to the customer or the consumer. I therefore beg to move the Clause. The stout opposition it has at once met with from those whom, I have reason to think, may be interested in the trade only shows the justice of the proposal I am making.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is one difficulty with regard to my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment for which I hope he will have some consideration, even though when I come to argue the Clause on its merits I hope I shall be successful in convincing him. I am convinced that if I accepted his Clause I should take this Finance Bill out of the category of a Money Bill, and thereby destroy the single control which, as long as it is a Money Bill, this House has over it. That really would make it impossible for me to accept my hon. and learned Friend's Clause as part of the Finance Bill, even if I were ready to agree that all its proposals were justified and in consonance with the previous statements I have made, and to which he has alluded. But I think my hon. and learned Friend laboured under some misapprehension as to what I had said, and made some confusion in the course of his speech between the customer and the consumer. What I said in my speech was that it was not intended that this charge should be passed on to the consumer. What he has in mind is more particularly the club, but also the publican, who is the instrument of distribution between the producer and the consumer. The consumer's protection is absolute under the Order of the Food Controller.
  Mr. HOHLER: Surely that only refers to a man who gets his pint of beer over the counter and drinks it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course the Order applies to that. The consumer is protected by the Food Controller. It was never intended by me, when I

  561
  proposed this tax, nor, I think, by the House, when it sanctioned it, that the whole of the charge was to fall on the brewer alone. It was intended that the charge should fall partly upon the brewer and partly upon the other interests. The hon. and learned Gentleman treats the club as the consumer. It is not the club, but the members of the club. The club is only in the position of the distributor to its own members, and certainly I contemplated in such a case that the brewer should be entitled to pass a portion of the charge, which should be settled by the interplay of trade action, on to the club, as the middleman between the producer and the customer who consumed the beer.
  In the same way the brewer should not pay the whole duty as brewer but part of the increased charge should fall upon the public-house, which has got the advantage, like the brewer, of the increased transaction which the increased value allows. Accordingly my objections to my hon. Friend's Amendment are, first of all, that it would take the Finance Bill out of the category of Money Bills and is, therefore, not an Amendment which could be placed in the Finance Bill; secondly, that it is not necessary for the protection of the consumer, and that if such a step were necessary for his protection this is not the place for it—it should be taken by an Amendment to the Food Controller's Order; and thirdly, that it never was intended that the whole charge should be borne by the brewer. If his contention is that the Food Controller ought to fix the price not only for the sale to the consumer but also at each stage through which the beer passes, as has been done in the case of spirits, I venture to suggest that it is an argument which he ought to address to the Food Controller. It is not a proposition which can be introduced in the Finance Bill.
  Mr. REMER: I am not at all satisfied with the reply which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am in the greatest sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member who moved this Clause. There is undoubtedly the greatest grievance among the publicans and the licensed victuallers on this question. It is not the fact, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that only
  562
  a small proportion has been passed on by the brewers to the publician; they are attempting to pass the whole of this tax on to them.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Some of them.
  Mr. REMER:It is certainly the case in the county of Cheshire. There is great discontent on this question, and I want to impress upon the Government that whichever way this is dealt with it should be dealt with strongly and firmly. It is a matter of great urgency, and it is felt as a great grievance among many classes of the people.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: There may be brewers who have raised their prices too high. There is no reason why that should not be dealt with and why somebody should not go into the matter or some fair arrangement be made. The retailer who will have a larger amount of beer to sell ought to make a profit. It depends upon the price the brewer charges whether this proposal is fair or unfair. I have heard of a case where one brewer sells at 77s. and another at 88s. Would the hon. Member treat those two the same? Of course be would not. This Clause would be grossly unfair to the man who charges the lower price.
  Mr. HOHLER: I will just answer the replies which have been made. I respectfully say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his point in regard to this being a Financial Bill is very specious. Nobody will suggest that another place could throw the Bill out because it contained this Clause.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no! I do not suggest that they will throw it out. My hon. Friend's proposed Clause has not the effect of a Money Clause, and therefore the other place would have power to deal with the whole of it. The Bill would not be certified as a Money Bill, add therefore the other place would have its full rights in regard to this Bill instead of being limited as they would be in regard to a Money Bill.
  Mr. HOHLER: I do not think the Committee is at all convinced by that argument. It may be a fact, but the arguments are fiction, and everybody is satisfied that the other place will not deal

  563
  with this Bill in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests because it contains this Clause. After all, it comes within the category of a Money Bill, because it secures that the tax shall be paid by the person on whom it is imposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had an opportunity of saying that he did not mean what I certainly understood him to mean, and, what is worse, what the country understood him to say. I have had working man after working man seeing me on this question, and they say they clearly understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this would be paid by the brewer.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he meant consumer, and he said, "Yes." He qualified that by saying "consumer or customer." If a customer, he includes the public-house and the club as the mediums between the brewer and the actual consumer. What I said was that it could not be transferred to the consumer.
  Mr. HOHLER: It will be transferred to the consumer. The man who buys the beer will have to pay it. In fact, in regard to the club, you are putting it on to the consumer. The Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act simply refer to the sale in a public bar or a public-house; they do not refer to anywhere else. I am satisfied that there are more men belonging to clubs who go to public-houses as well. It is, therefore, an important question to them. The transfer of this tax has meant that those to whom it has been transferred cannot precisely apportion it. They have to put up their prices, and there is no means whereby they can adjust it. In regard to the private consumer, it is a direct transfer of the tax to him. I have given the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of proving this by law. I regret exceedingly that he has not seen his way to do it. My Clause would not affect a single brewer who acted fairly, because, first of all, there is no evidence of this transfer until the price has been increased from the 1st April, 1919. That is only after primâ facie evidence. Then the brewer can satisfy the Court that the increased price has nothing to do with the duty.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: What the hon. Gentleman does not know is that a certain
  564
  increase in the output of beer was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a month before he introduced his Budget.
  Mr. HOHLER: I am satisfied that the general public will be deeply disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to accept my Clause. I am satisfied also that they will think that this is another case of profiteering, and that they have been misled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. They understood that the tax would not be transferred to them, and when notices are read showing what the brewers are doing, all we are told is that another place can deal with it. If my Clause is too wide I will take out "licensed victuallers," and move it in the amended form. If it is not accepted, I have done my duty in trying to prevent what is causing considerable unrest.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON:I am not quite clear in regard to the argument that this Amendment puts the Finance Bill outside the category of Money Bills. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say why. What the hon. Gentleman has said regarding the belief that the increased taxation is to be paid by the brewers was generally understood by the publicans themselves. It all comes to this, that the man who drinks the stuff has to pay the tax. I would like to know why the whole of the new Clause, as it stands, takes the Finance Bill outside the category of Money Bills?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure I cannot satisfy the hon. Member. I am sorry I cannot assist him. All I can say is that the inclusion of this Clause would prevent the Speaker from giving his certificate. That has happened once or twice before. The hon. Member may remember the Budget which caused the Parliament Act to be passed. When it was finally passed it was not certified as a Money Bill under the Parliament Act. At any rate, that was a surprise to the authors of the Parliament Act, and the result was not expected. If the hon. Member will refer the question to the Speaker or to the authorities of the House, I am sure he will get the answer. It is a point which is within the discretion of the Speaker. I am advised that this Clause, if accepted, would probably prevent the Speaker from giving his certificate.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman go more fully into the

  565
  matter; if so, perhaps he will be able to explain more fully than he has been able to do this evening?
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I am surprised that this argument should be brought forward as having any direct bearing upon the Clause. I remember the case to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred when one or two Clauses in the Budget of that particular year were, in the Speaker's opinion, outside the provisions of the Act. As far as I remember they were Amendments of administration connected with a previous Budget, and not the particular Finance Act in question. From what little I know of the subject I should hesitate to prophesy whether the fact that a par-

  New CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Sections 12 and 13 of Income Tax Act, 1918.)
  Sections twelve and thirteen of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be extended to provide that, where the father of a family is dead and a son or daughter is maintaining the family, such son or daughter shall be entitled in respect of any dependent brothers and sisters living with him, and in respect of the mother so long as she is a widow and living with him, to the relief given in those Sections as if such brothers and sisters were children within the meaning of Section twelve, and as if the mother were a wife within the meaning of Section thirteen.—[Mr. Adamson.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  ticular Amendment had relation to a new tax imposed in that very Act would rule the Bill outside the category of a Finance Bill. Even if it did it does not follow, as has been pointed out, that the other House will take any immediate action. The Bill in question went forward without the certificate of the Speaker and passed without further exception being taken. I have not the Clause of the Finance Act here; perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer has it. The exception is, so far as they are ancillary or connected with the legislation proposed in the Bill.
  Question put,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 61.

  Division No. 75.]

  AYES.

  1.20 a.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (stourbridge)

  Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E.)

  Neal, Arthur

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Roberts, F.O. (W. Bromwich)

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Carr, W. T.

  Sexton, James

  Coots, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Davies, T. (Cirencester

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Hohler and Mr. Remer,

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gretton, Col. John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ainsworth, Captain C.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic, Loughboro')

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Archdale, Edward M.

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Hennessy, Major G.

  Redmond, Captain William A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.

  Rodger, A. K.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hood, Joseph

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Benn, sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Seager, Sir William

  Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A, (Lancaster)

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

  Campion, Colonel W. R.

  Inskip, T. W. H.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Johnstone. J.

  Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston>

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Jones, J, Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

  Townley, Maximilan G.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Gangs, E. S.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. (Exeter)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Parker, James

  Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move,
  "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is designed to give effect to one of the concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I do not know if the Clause can be accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the wording, I shall be quite willing to withdraw the Clause on the condition that he gives effect to it on the Report stage
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This refers to the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman was moving earlier. I hope he will not

  567
  press us to come to a decision now, but I will study the matter between now and Report. There is some difficulty about meeting his case. I will see about bringing up a Clause to meet it. If the right hon. Gentleman will put his Clause down for the Report stage I shall be able to tell him that I will accept his Clause, or alternatively that I have found a way to meet his point in other words, or that I have failed to devise a satisfactory solution. I cannot pledge myself to anything more than a friendly consideration.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I think I will withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  ADJOURNMENT—Resolved,
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Half after One a.m., 17th July.

  1914–15 STAR.
  1914–15 STAR.
  MISSION TO VATICAN.
  MISSION TO VATICAN.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CHEESE.
  CHEESE.
IRELAND
  TWELFTH OF JULY SPEECHES.
  TWELFTH OF JULY SPEECHES.
  FOOD CONTROL ORDERS.
  FOOD CONTROL ORDERS.
  BELFAST PRISON (HUNGER STRIKE).
  BELFAST PRISON (HUNGER STRIKE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL.
  DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
  DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
  SICK-BERTH STAFF (PROMOTION).
  SICK-BERTH STAFF (PROMOTION).
  LIEUTENANTS (PROMOTION).
  LIEUTENANTS (PROMOTION).
  LOSS OF SS. "LEINSTER."
  LOSS OF SS. "LEINSTER."
  PETROL (WAR OFFICE STOCK).
  PETROL (WAR OFFICE STOCK).
  BAKU (TROOPS' PAY).
  BAKU (TROOPS' PAY).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  RE-ENLISTMENT (SERVICE IN INDIA).
  RE-ENLISTMENT (SERVICE IN INDIA).
  SOLDIERS' FREE RAILWAY WARRANTS.
  SOLDIERS' FREE RAILWAY WARRANTS.
  CORPS OF MILITARY MASSEUSES (WAR GRATUITY).
  CORPS OF MILITARY MASSEUSES (WAR GRATUITY).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AIRSHIP CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT.
  AIRSHIP CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT.
PEACE CELEBRATIONS.
  DISCHARGED SERVICEMEN UNDER TREATMENT
  DISCHARGED SERVICEMEN UNDER TREATMENT
  OPENING OF SHOPS.
  OPENING OF SHOPS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  DISABILITY PENSION.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  NATIONAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY, WADDON (DISMISSALS).
  NATIONAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY, WADDON (DISMISSALS).
  OARLYLE AND SLOANE SCHOOLS, CHELSEA.
  OARLYLE AND SLOANE SCHOOLS, CHELSEA.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (PEACE HOLIDAY).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (PEACE HOLIDAY).
  RETIRED TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  RETIRED TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  HIGHER EDUCATION (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
  HIGHER EDUCATION (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
  AFGHANISTAN.
  AFGHANISTAN.
  BURMA (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS).
  BURMA (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS).
  DENTAL REGISTRATION.
  DENTAL REGISTRATION.
  MOTOK BICYCLES (ACCIDENTS).
  MOTOK BICYCLES (ACCIDENTS).
  WANDSWORTH PRISON (ASSISTANT WARDER).
  WANDSWORTH PRISON (ASSISTANT WARDER).
  NATIONAL LEAGUE OF THE BLIND (STREET COLLECTION).
  NATIONAL LEAGUE OF THE BLIND (STREET COLLECTION).
COAL.
  SMALL PURCHASES.
  SMALL PURCHASES.
  INCREASED PRICE.
  INCREASED PRICE.
  RAILWAY TRANSIT AND CARTAGE.
  RAILWAY TRANSIT AND CARTAGE.
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  LUGGAGE RESTRICTIONS.
  LUGGAGE RESTRICTIONS.
  COASTAL TRADE.
  COASTAL TRADE.
POST OFFICE.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, KEW GREEN.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, KEW GREEN.
  CARETAKER TELEPHONE OPEEATOES.
  CARETAKER TELEPHONE OPEEATOES.
  TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CABLES.
  TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CABLES.
  POSTAL SERVICES, KENT.
  POSTAL SERVICES, KENT.
  FOREIGN TELEGRAMS.
  FOREIGN TELEGRAMS.
  LACE MACHINES, NOTTINGHAM
  LACE MACHINES, NOTTINGHAM
  OFFICE OF WORKS (HOURS OF WORK).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (HOURS OF WORK).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF KINTORE): My Lords, I beg, in respect of this Bill, to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
On, Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDER LAND DOCK BILL.
Read 3a and passed.

THE TREATY OF PEACE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, have to announce to your Lordships that I have received from the President of the Brazilian National Congress the following communication—
To His Excellency,
The President of the English Senate, London.
I have the honour to inform your Excellency that the Brazilian National Congress, in formal session, and at the instance of the President of the Committee for Diplomatic Affairs, resolved to congratulate the political body over which your Excellency so worthily presides, on the signature of the Treaty of Peace. Cordial greetings.
A. AZEREDO,
President of Congress.
I have further to announce to your Lordships that I have received from Benito Villanueva, President of the Argentine Senate, the following communication, dated June 30—
The Senate of the Argentine nation has unanimously resolved in to-day's session to express its intense satisfaction to the British House of Lords at the signature of the Peace Treaty, which puts an end to the trials, sufferings, and sacrifices endured for five years by the greater part of mankind. The Argentine Senate trusts that the generous and lofty ideals which have inspired the heroic effort of the sons of Great Britain and her Colonies will be converted into permanent guarantees consolidating for ever the dominion of peace and justice.
Agreeably with precedent, I have given directions that suitable replies shall be forwarded on behalf of your Lordships to those who have sent the Messages I have just read.

THE COAL INDUSTRY.
EARL BRASSEY EARL BRASSEY rose to call attention to the recommendations relating to the nationalisation of the coal industry contained in the Reports of the Coal Commission, and to the disastrous effects of bureaucratic interference in trade and industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put this Notice down for discussion because I am profoundly impressed by the serious situation in which our country is now placed, a situation which is gradually becoming worse. We have lost much of our shipping and of our trade during the war; we have incurred an enormous National Debt, and we cannot meet our liabilities, still less can we go in for extensive schemes of housing and other things for the betterment of the masses of the people of this country, unless our trade and our industries are paying their way.
Many of the steps taken by various Departments of His Majesty's Government are directed to prevent such a result coming about. I submit that Government Departments cannot decree advances in wages and reductions in hours irrespective of the capacity of the industry to bear them. Concessions made as the result of I fear do not tend to remove the danger of Bolshevism; they tend to create Bol

629
sheviks. The people of this country voted overwhelmingly against Bolshevism at the last Election. They certainly did not put the present Government into power to "bolshevise" British industry, but that is what many Government Departments are doing at the present time. We have made a greater sacrifice and a bigger effort to win this war than any other nation; we made a big effort at sea, we made a big effort on land; but all our sacrifices and all our efforts will be in vain and the victory we have won as a result of them will be a hollow one if the trade and industry of this country are to go to ruin. Unless the people come to their senses, it is my belief that we are in for a disaster similar to that which befel the Roman Empire in its last days; and the first thing that the people of this country have to realise is that wages have to come down, and not go up, as the cost of living falls.
As I have said before in your Lordships' House, I think that the Government's surrender to the demands of the "triple alliance" some six months ago is the chief cause of the trouble with which we are now face to face. In my opinion there was no justification for a rise in wages at that time. I believe that the miners are as patriotic a class as any in the country; no class volunteered more readily for service, and no class proved better soldiers in the field. If the Government had "taken the bull by the horns" and faced the question, as I contend they should have done, at the time these demands by the "triple alliance" were made, our trade and industry would not be in the position in which they are to-day.
I turn to the First Report of the Coal Commission. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with many remarks on that Report; I am going to leave it to be dealt with by the others who will come after me, who are, perhaps, better able to speak on the subject. But I wish to call your Lordships' attention in the first place to this paragraph in Mr. Justice Sankey's First Report—
"The present system of ownership and working of the coal industry stands condemned, and some other system must be substituted for it."
I do not think that this proposition can be altogether justified; in fact, I think it is very far from being true. It was under private ownership that the output of coal in this country rose from 128,000,000 tons in 1873 to 287,000,000 in 1913. In South
630
Wales, whence a large proportion of our coal is exported, the production rose from 16.000,000 tons in 1873 to 56,000,000 in 1913. That development of this great industry was due entirely to private enterprise. It was due to capitalists being willing to sink money in pits and other expensive plant; and it was also due in no small degree to the energy and enterprise of our merchants—a class which it would seem some Governments were wishing to do away with a short time ago, though I hope that better counsels will prevail now—and of the agents of our collieries abroad that markets were found for this large increase in our production.
Before the war we were supplying Italy with almost the whole of her requirements in coal—11,000,000 out of 12,000,000 tons. We were also supplying Argentina, amongst other places. This export of coal very nearly paid for our imports of corn. But under Government control during the last few months this trade is rapidly disappearing. As I have admitted before in this House, employers may have been to blame in some cases for the unrest that exists in the coal industry, but I am satisfied that in the majority of cases the employers were doing their best to do their duty.
To turn now to the Second Report. Mr. Justice Sankey, in his Report, recommends, first, the immediate acquisition of royalties, paving fair compensation to the owners; and, second, the acquisition after three years of the mines, also paying fair compensation to the owners. The miners' Members agree in the main with Mr. Justice Sankey's Report but they think that no compensation should be paid to the mineral owners. I take it—I am not quite sure—that they admit that some compensation should be paid to the owners of the mines. In a further part of his Report Mr. Justice Sankey sketches out a scheme for the administration of mines under national control. I am not experienced in the management of coal mines in this country, but I have a considerable experience of the management of mines abroad. I do not think that the system of administration which he sketches out will in all respects commend itself to those who are experienced in the management of mines, and in one point especially it cannot stand criticism. There can be no divided responsibility in the management of any pit. In the management of a pit there must be one man, and one man only, responsible, for

631
on the way in which he does his duty depends the lives of all the men working in that pit.
I would like to direct your Lordships' attention to two other points in Mr. Justice Sankey's Report. In paragraph XLI Mr. Justice Sankey says—
"…the war has demonstrated the potentiality of the existence of a new class of men…who are just as keen to serve the State as they are to serve a private employer, and who have been shown to possess the qualities of courage in taking initiative necessary for the running of an industry."
Paragraph XLIII is to the same effect. It is no doubt true that the war has produced many men of first-class administrative capacity. There is no doubt it has produced many men who have possessed "the qualities of courage in taking initiative necessary for the running of an industry." But to run an industry, or to run a Department of the Ministry of Munitions, during this war when the whole thing was to get production, irrespective of the cost of production, is a totally different thing from attempting to run an industry in peace time, when everything depends on keeping down the cost of production.
That Mr. Justice Sankey feels some hesitation, or some doubt, about his recommendation for the nationalisation of coal mines is clear from two other paragraphs in his Report. He says in paragraph XLII—
"State management of industries has, on balance, failed to prove itself free from serious shortcomings."
Then, in paragraph LXXVI he says—
"It being of vital importance that the Mines Department—"
that is, the Department which shall run the whole of the mines of the country
"should be managed with the freedom of a private business—"
therefore he advocates that the rules governing the ordinary Civil Service should not apply.
I direct the attention of your Lordships to another point in the Report of the miners' representatives. The miners' representatives think that immense economy can be effected in the distribution of coal, and they base that belief on the experience of the distribution of coal through the Co-operative Wholesale Society
632
and the large number of co-operative distributing societies scattered through the country. In reply to that I say that it is a very simple thing to distribute coal when you are going to provide households all of which require coal of much the same quality. It is a very different thing when you have to distribute coal to a vast number of industries many of which require coal of very different quality. Under Government management I am sure that everyone will have to be satisfied with the quality of coal which is supplied to him and he will not have very much redress.
I speak from experience during the war on this point. The business that I am conducting in Italy includes large smelting works, and the supply of fuel, coal, and coke to these works has been naturally under Government management. We have had to be content with any quality of coal or coke with which the Italian Government could supply us, and in some cases the calorific value of the coke was not 50 per cent. of that possessed by the coke supplied before the war. Take another instance from one's experience. I was in Italy the other day, and the mines were in danger of being shut down because of the lack of dynamite and the high price of dynamite, which forms a large part of the cost of production in nonferrous metal mines such as those I am managing. I urged upon the Government to do their best to help us in this regard. They did place a supply of dynamite at our disposal at a less cost than we were paying, but our engineers pointed out that the quality vas not suitable for work in our mines. That is the kind of thing that happens when von have matters under Government control.
To turn from the Report to the discussion which took place in the House of Commons the other day, I had the privilege of listening to a portion of the speech of Sir Auckland Geddes and also to that of Mr. Brace. Mr. Brace suggested, at the conclusion of his speech. that the Government should take the workmen—he afterwards added "and employers," more or less as an after-thought—into consultation, with the view of seeing how it was possible to increase the output, and then he further urged that the Government should at once introduce a Bill to nationalise the coal mines. Yesterday Mr. Smillie, at the miners' gathering at Keswick, at the conclusion of his speech, offered to bring

633
out the whole of the miners on strike in order "to support the Government" in carrying out the Sankey Report.
I hope most sincerely that the Government will not be deterred by the threats of Mr. Smillie or of any one else from doing their duty. The interests of the community stand above the interests of any section of it. In view of the falling off in output which has taken place since the concessions were made six months ago, the Government in my judgment are most certainly not justified in reducing the hours of labour to seven at the present time. That reduction in hours will mean a further falling off in output. It will impose a hardship on every member of the community; it will seriously cripple our industry and our trade; and I do not think it is justified. The miners are not wholly to blame for the falling off in output that has taken place during the past six months. Every one who has had to do with the management of mines knows that during the war, and in the months which have elapsed since, there has been immense difficulty in getting all sorts of mining supplies, mining timber, and that there has been occasionally a shortage of trucks. But while the miners are not wholly to blame for the falling off in output, they are most certainly partly to blame for it, as the increase in absenteeism shows.
I am against the nationalisation of the coal industry because I believe it will be fatal to the future of the industry and will not be in the best interests of the workers themselves. Again let me go to my own experience. During the war I consulted the Italian Ministry of Munitions, to whom we were supplying our products, and I asked them whether they thought it desirable that we should put our mines under the control of the Government as many others had done. They advised me, "No." They said that the experience of Italy during the war had been that there were far more strikes in businesses and mines under the control of the Government than there were in those which remained in private hands. Our mines remained uncontrolled to the end of the war. What would have been the effect had they been placed under Government control? This is a point which is worth noting. Every mine in the same district was under Government control. The Government would have placed in each mine an
634
official, probably quite ignorant of mining—in most cases the men so placed were perfectly ignorant—who would probably have said to the manager, "You must not carry a heading in that direction," and would have interfered constantly in the management. There is also another objection. Innumerable daily returns would have had to be made of the men employed in the mine, and on other matters, which would have meant a doubling of the clerical staff required for the management of the industry.
My belief is that the remedy for the present situation in the coal industry is by a grouping of the mines in each district, as suggested by Lord Gainford to the Royal Commission. I say that for this reason—and it is based on personal experience. Mines are not all capable of producing a profit, and if they are grouped in each district and managed by a federation of the mine owners of that district, it will be for them to say whether or not it is worth while to carry on the poorer mines. No one knows better than I do the value of having a large number of mines grouped under one management. Non-ferrous mines are in a different category from coal mines, and their conditions vary from time to time. Ore may become exhausted, and a mine which was giving a profit may become unprofitable. The advantage of grouping was that because some of the mines made a profit the rest of the mines were able to be carried on. At the present time the whole of my mines except one are working at a loss, and we are only able to keep working at all by the one mine which is doing well. There is also this further advantage—and it will meet the argument in favour of the nationalisation of mines which is alluded to more than once in these Reports—it will overcome the difficulty of pumping where two or three small mines are grouped together, and where the work which has to be done for one mine might probably not justify the expenditure on expensive plant.
There is a point which forms one of the great arguments for nationalisation on which I should like to say a few words. It is argued that the miners will never do good work as long as profits go into the pockets of the owner. No doubt a great deal has been justifiably said against profiteering, but I think it is a great mistake for the workmen as a body to assume, because a man conducts his business at a

635
profit, that therefore he is an enemy of the working class. I say the very reverse is the case. My grandfather had 70,000 men at times in his employ, and throughout the whole of his business experience he never had a strike. He amassed an enormous fortune; yet he never had a strike. Lord Leverhulme, who I am sorry is not in his place to-day, also has amassed an enormous fortune, and who can deny that his workmen are contented? Some of your Lordships may have paid a visit to Port Sunlight and have seen all that he has done in the matter of housing for his workers. The improvement in the condition of the workers really comes from the employer who conducts his business at a profit, who makes a good profit; it will never come from the employer who conducts his business at a loss.
I have trespassed sufficiently long on your Lordships' attention already but I should like to put forward one or two further arguments against Government interference in industry. Take the shipbuilding industry during the war. Your Lordships will remember that there was a very great falling off in the output of shipbuilding at a very critical period in the war. The President of the Institute of Naval Architects pointed out that a great deal of the trouble in the shipbuilding industry was caused by the interference of Government officials between master and man, and it was the general opinion of all with whom I discussed the question that if the Government had simply asked the employers and employed to do their best, and not have interfered with them, the falling off in shipbuilding would not have been anything like so serious as it was.
I turn to agriculture. To no one does the country owe more for the development of agriculture during the war than to the noble Viscount who, I understand, is going to reply for the Government. What is taking place now? An increase in wages was decreed by the Agricultural Wages Board some time ago. That rise was I believe justified by the circumstances, but the recent rise, decreed only a month or so ago, is in my opinion absolute folly. The skilled man is worth the wages all the time, but to put that down as a minimum is to prevent the employment of numbers of people in agriculture who would otherwise be employed, and the consequence of this
636
will obviously be that a great deal of the land which has been ploughed up during the war will tumble down again to grass or rough pasture, and a good many farmers will be heavily hit if not ruined. In my own part of the world when the local Wages Board was ordered to pit up wages by the Central Wages Board the employers' representatives resigned from their office.
Upon the few observations which I have made I come to the conclusion that the less Government Departments interfere in trade and industry the better for trade and industry and the better for the country. I had hoped, as the noble Lord opposite knows very well, that when the Coalition Government under the present Prime Minister came into office it would lead to a better organisation of the conduct of business in this country. Instead of that a vast bureaucracy has been created, and whatever it did during the war I do not think that bureaucracy has justified itself since the declaration of the Armistice. Individual effort is being stifled in every direction, and if that is allowed to go on I see no hope for the future of the trade and industry of the country.
The late Commander-in-Chief, to whom we owe so much during the four and a-half years of the war, in his Rectorial Address at St. Andrews the other day—and I commend it to your Lordships' attention—in endeavouring to answer the question, What had enabled us to meet the four and a-half years' strain of war so successfully? found his answer in an address which Pericles delivered at the close of the first year of the Peloponnesian War for the encouragement of the Athenians, and amongst those reasons was that above all the mainspring of our political development had been the liberty of the individual. The people of this country—I do not care to what class they belong—are I believe sound, but I submit that it is the duty of your Lordships as far as you can to curb the activities of a bureaucracy, which are now limiting individual efforts and enterprise, and to see that individual enterprise is given fair play. If we do that, and only if we do that, can the disaster by which this country is threatened be avoided. I beg to move for Papers.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I think the noble Earl who has just sat down is to be congratulated upon

637
having brought this matter up in this House, because I think your Lordships will agree it is about time that we had a full and clear explanation of the Government's policy, past and present, even if we cannot know what their future policy is, with regard to the Coal Commission and with regard to nationalisation. I think it is the universal opinion of people in this country that the Coal Commission has been a somewhat discreditable affair—discreditable in its methods and deplorable in its results—and for the fact tin that has been the case the Government cannot escape a share of the blame. That is due to two things—in the first place, the composition of the Commission; in the second place, the time limit to which the Government, consented for the first stage of the Inquiry—namely, one fortnight—which was imposed by the miners' representatives. The composition of the Commission was also a concession to the miners extorted by a threat.
I do not know, my Lords, what precedent there is for composing a judicial inquiry of persons who are intimately engaged or interested in the question under discussion, but I believe that such precedents as exist are somewhat unfortunate. In any case, under the peculiar circumstances in which this Commission was composed, the results could not be anything but disastrous. You had a most critical situation. A condition of intense friction existed between employers and employed. "Friction" is too weak a word—intense hostility would be better—and you then put these utterly irreconcilable and contending elements on a Commission in the hope that they will obtain an impartial result. Once having embarked upon the principle of putting persons engaged in the industry on the Commission, there might have been something to be said for adhering to that principle. I can imagine that better results than were actually obtained might have been secured by appointing three miners' representatives, three employers' representatives, three middlemen, and three royalty owners, with other people engaged in the industry. But what happened? Instead of doing this you put on three other employers of labour not connected, or at least not directly connected, with the coal industry, although, of course, from the fact that they are big employers of labour in industries depending upon coal, they know something about the matter. But what is more inexplicable is that you
638
appoint three persons belonging to Socialist societies. I wish to say nothing against them. I am sure they are honest and sincere men, but they are of a somewhat idealistic and doctrinaire type, and carry no weight in the country, and so far as I can make out the sole reason for appointing them was that they were welcomed by the miners' representatives. At least that is the reason which was given when they were appointed.
You have therefore got a Commission divided into two sides—six on one side who sided with the minors' representatives in advocating nationalisation, and six employers' representatives who would naturally side against nationalisation. In no possible circumstances could that tribunal obtain any impartial result, and indeed it made no effort to do so. Some cynical persons have observed that the Government had acted wisely in appointing this Commission, because they had at any rate given the miners' representatives sufficient rope to hang themselves. I do not make that suggestion myself, because it would involve a very serious charge against the Government which I do not wish to bring against them, but I think the Government are themselves to blame if such conclusions are drawn.
The Commission having been composed in such a way that its proceedings must be a. farce, it seems somewhat unfortunate that one of the most eminent of His Majesty's Judges should have been selected as chairman, because it gave an appearance of a judicial inquiry to this Commission which, as a matter of fact, it never had. Its methods were somewhat peculiar. I should not like to express an opinion of what is or what is not judicial procedure in the presence of so many eminent lawyers who sit in your Lordships' House, but I believe it is generally agreed that it is somewhat unusual, and perhaps a little irregular, for one person to act as judge, jury, witness, and counsel for both the prosecution and the defence all at the same time. One other rather inexplicable fact is also, I think, deserving of some explanation, which is that one member of the Commission, trying to prove that landowners had no title to their property, quoted Blackstone and Coke and other eminent lawyers to prove this somewhat strange contention. He was perfectly entitled to try and prove anything he liked, but it seems somewhat extraordinary that

639
the Chairman could have sat perfectly still through several days while this process was continued. I do not know whether we really are to infer that Sir John Sankey is not acquainted with the law in regard to the ownership of land in this country, because if that is the case it is rather a serious matter. I am not sure that it is not a matter for the Lord Chancellor or for the Lord Chief Justice to deal with, but I think somebody ought to deal with it.
The next point deserving of explanation is the time limit which was imposed on the Commission. This was a concession which. I think, is not consistent either with the dignity or the honour of the Government which accepted it. The natural inference which the public cannot help drawing from these facts is that the first stage of the inquiry at any rate was a foregone conclusion. If the Government could stoop to such an ignominous surrender as to consent to a Report being issued on such vital questions as those of wages and hours in such an important industry as the coal industry in the space of one short fortnight, the man in the street would naturally conclude that the verdict regarding those points must be a foregone conclusion, and that the appointment of the Commission was mere camouflage in order to conceal the indignity of an open surrender. I am not saying that this conclusion is justified, but I say that it is the obvious inference which the public would draw from the circumstances.
We now come to a point which has never been explained so far as I know. The Chairman's Report after the first stage of the inquiry, issued on March 20, went very much further than the terms of reference warranted. They were told to report on the question of wages and hours alone. One would have thought that those would have been sufficient subjects for inquiry in the space of one short fortnight. But the Chairman went much further. Not only did he pronounce upon the question of wages and hours, as had been agreed upon by the Government, but he actually condemned the present system of working the coal industry—that is to say, this vast system on which the whole industry of this country depends, which is a national asset of the utmost importance with any number of ramifications of the most complex nature, is condemned quite unnecessarily. He was not asked to express any opinion on it upon the evidence taken in
640
the course of one fortnight. That expression of opinion had a somewhat important result, for it meant that the next stage of the Commission's inquiry opened with a very important initial step having been taken on the road towards nationalisation. Accordingly some members of the Commission endeavoured to throw on to the witnesses the onus of suggesting an alternative to nationalisation. They said. "The present system stands condemned; it is for you to supply an alternative system other than the one which we propose." Anything more unfair or unjustifiable can hardly be conceived.
We now come to the second and final Reports of the Commission, which were issued I think on June 20, in which a majority (If seven, including the Chairman, reported in favour of nationalisation. The first pointed to be noted is the result of the inclusion of the three Socialist members to whom f have already referred, but it really involves the deception of the public in which the Government—I do not say consciously—have connived. The Executive of the shiners' Federation and the Fabian Society have, as is well known, ulterior ends. The Fabian Society do not care anything about coal as coal, and I am not at all sure that the Miners' Federation care very much. In any event, both have ulterior ends, and if they differ in a great many points—they differ as to methods—the ultimate purpose for which they are both working is the expropriation of all land and all capital.
We therefore come to this conclusion—it is a quite inevitable conclusion from all we know about these gentlemen, about their past, about their principles—that the majority verdict given for the nationalisation of coal is not really recorded for nationalisation of the coal industry as such, but is a verdict for the nationalisation of all private property and all private enterprise, towards which result the nationalisation of coal is the first step because it is the basis of every other industry. The public who know a good deal about the Executive of the Miners' Federation and the three miners' representatives and also about the Fabian Society, have, I think, discounted to a great extent this Report—at least I hope so,—but the effect of the Chairman's Report will, I venture to think, be more serious.
There are four points to be noted about the Chairman's Report which are of great

641
importance. In the first place, he says that the result of the inquiry is to convince him that the miners are not doing their best. I should not have thought that it was necessary to sit on a Commission from March to June in order to discover that fact. He then goes on to say that this complete breakdown in the industry may be due either to the fault of the miners or to the fault of the employers, and he does not know which. But he condemned the industry in March, and therefore he condemned the industry without finding out what its defects were. He condemned the industry without finding out who was to blame. He said that another system must be substituted for the old system without finding out why the old system had broken down.
Next he goes on to state—although he does not give his reasons—that the miners will work for the State where they will not work for the private employer. I do not know whether the miners' love for polities and politicians is so great that they are really likely to work better under political than under private control, but I think that this argument might be more convincing if he had brought a few more reasons to bear upon it. Next, and most important, he proposes to trust to the honour of the miners and to the honour of their leaders in order to make this system of nationalisation which he proposes a success. In order to get an assurance that the men should do a full day's work for a full day's pay, which is absolutely necessary if the future of this country is to be maintained, he says he will trust the men's honour and the leaders' honour. It must be quite as well known to Sir John Sankey as it is to everybody else in this country that over and over again in the last few years the leaders have made the most solemn promises to the Government, which they have been unable to bind their men to observe. Over and over again it has happened that such assurances have been broken.
But quite apart from that he proposes to trust the honour of the men's leaders, and, after all, this assurance that the men will work can only be given through their leaders. But who are these leaders? I am certainly not going to make any attack upon any individual; I am only going to state what is a fact, without using any epithets or any adjectives. It is a perfectly well known fact that the President
642
of the Miners' Federation, who would have to give this assurance, was engaged in fomenting revolution during the past war. He was using disorganisation caused by the war, the embarrassments and difficulties of the war, in order to preach sedition. He may be perfectly sincere, but that is what he was doing. He is even now threatening "direct action" if certain political demands are not granted, such as the withdrawal of troops from Russia, the abolition of conscription, and so on. Is it really consistent with the dignity and honour of this country that we should depend upon the honour of this gentleman in regard to the future conduct of the most vital of all our industries?
If there is one thing that is noticeable about the Chairman's Report it is the complete absence of any principle therein. All he says is that a condition has been created in the mining industry which, if it is allowed to go on, will be fatal to the future prosperity of this country. He does not know who is to blame for this position of affairs but it exists; and therefore, he says, we must impose some new system on the industry, and he suggests nationalisation. There is no principle there; there is nothing but opportunism and expediency. I do not know what the policy of the Government is in regard to this matter. A few days ago I think it was Mr. Bonar Law who said that the Government had an open mind" with regard to nationalisation. I should very much like to know whether they have an open mind with regard to the Sankey Report. I certainly hope not for it would mean, if they have, that they have substituted opportunism and expediency for principle, and in this great crisis which we are now passing through, which does not promise to get any better but a great deal worse in the months which lie before us, I think it is absolutely essential that this country should have leadership. And if it is to have leadership, it is equally essential that the Government should substitute conviction and principle for an open mind.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with what has been said by the noble Earl who introduced this discussion and so much of the noble Duke's speech as I heard I agree with, too. This discussion is, in my judgment, conducted under very great disadvantages, and it is not my intention to discuss at any length the question

643
of nationalisation. Up to the present time I have not seen the evidence, nor am I aware that the evidence has been circulated even among members of your Lordships' House; I have tried to get a copy but have not succeeded, therefore I conclude that it has not been circulated. I do not think that any one is able to form a just opinion of what the Report means unless he has the evidence before him which led to that Report.
I quite agree with what the noble Duke has said with regard to the Commission. There is no doubt whatever that this Commission was not selected as an impartial Commission. Every man on it had his views about nationalisation, and, whatever evidence was brought before it, I do not think it would have made very much difference to the opinion of most of the gentlemen on the Commission. I would take this opportunity of protesting against the practice of His Majesty's Government in appointing Judges of the High Court to preside over political Commissions of this kind. No body of men has a higher reputation in the world than our High Court Judges. I feel quite sure that if this practice of appointing our High Court Judges to political Commissions continues we shall find that their reputation will suffer very seriously. I think the Government have been unfortunate in appointing Mr. Justice Sankey to take charge of this Commission.
With regard to nationalisation, so far as my judgment is concerned I think there can be no more fatal blunder than to nationalise the coal mines of this country. If you could point out to me any industry, or anything which is controlled by the Government which is successfully managed, economically managed, it might have some weight with me. But take the Post Office, take the telegraph service, take the telephones, and now I presume they are going to take the railways, and I say, God help us if the Government control the railways in the way they have been controlling them during the war. I am certain it will lead to higher costs, higher fares, more inefficiency. I am one of those who have suffered from Government control, and I think it would be the maddest thing for Parliament to put these great industries under the control of any Government Department.
I see it stated in the Report that the private management of collieries is a fail
644
ure. I hold in my hand a circular letter, dated February 27, 1919, issued to the district coal-owners and miners' associations on behalf of the Commission, in which it is stated—
"I am directed by the Chairman of the Commissioners to inform you that he desires your Association to send one witness to give evidence before the Commissioners upon the first part of their Inquiry, which it is intended to conclude by March 20. That part of the Inquiry will be confined to a preliminary investigation into the question of wages and hours."
Of course the colliery owners, invited under this clause, did not provide any evidence with regard to nationalisation; and yet Mr. Justice Sankey, after issuing this notice, allowed all kinds of questions about nationalisation and a great many other things which, I think, were quite irrelevant so far as hours and wages were concerned.
One of the chief things that they seemed to talk about was the question of housing, I am not saying that the houses in connection with coal mines are all that they ought to be. But there are many collieries where the houses are very good; and if you compare the houses occupied by miners with the houses ocupied by agricultural labourers or by workers in any other industry, I think you will find that they are no worse. The housing question is one with which we ought to deal, but I do not see that this gives any reason to nationalise the coal-mines any more than it gives a reason to nationalise every other industry where workers are not provided with the very best houses they ought to have.
I think, too, that His Majesty's Government are largely to blame for our present position. I am not going to attack the Government because Governments make mistakes the same as individuals. But we have heard a great deal of talk about industrial councils in the discussions of Labour questions. One would think that the industrial councils had been discovered by Mr. Whitley, the way many people talk about it; but may I inform you that for forty years we have had industrial councils in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, and all over the country, connected with the coal trade, which have worked admirably; where representatives of the men and the masters are brought together, questions are discussed, we feel each others' touch almost; we get to know our own characters, and we know when we are bluffing and when we are serious. These industrial

645
councils have settled all questions with regard to our special counties. Then we have our conciliation boards which deal with wages. Why did not His Majesty's Government say to the miners when they came forward for an advance, "You have bodies which have been accustomed to deal with these questions, go and discuss this question with them. If you cannot come to terms, then you can come to us and we will see what we can do for you." Instead of that, His Majesty's Government began to deal with the men through Mr. Smillie and not through the different districts as had been the case formerly, which, of course, played into Mr. Smillie's hands. What has been the result? They have given all kinds of things in the shape of wages, hours, and conditions, and so on, which have never been thought of in connection with mining; paying wages when no work was done, giving back wages for three months after the first application for an advance was made. These practices have never been done. All these things would have been settled much more satisfactorily in the interests not only of the miners and of the owners but of the country itself by the means we had hitherto adopted.
Then look at the friction this has created between the Government and the miners. If they had pursued the policy I suggest, they would have had a buffer between themselves and the Government. Depend upon it, if you begin to deal with questions of wages and hours in the Home Office without real consultation with the people who have to pay the wages and to deal with the hours—I speak of workmen, manufacturers, and of owners of every kind—you will get into serious difficulty; you will get into the hands of the politicians; and my experience of politicians when they deal with questions of this kind is that they are very unreliable guides. I think it would have been very much better if they had simply referred the miners to the various industrial councils which have been accustomed to deal with these things, without dealing direct with them.
Government control has been mentioned. I have suffered under Government control during the war, and I say from my own experience that if Government control is to continue in connection with the coal trade you will have very much higher prices to pay—you will never reduce your prices. The Government are simply ob
646
structors. Questions that we could settle in two minutes we have bad to send to London. We could never get a reply for a month. Some of the questions have been of the simplest nature, and it has been most difficult to get an answer. In the end you generally had to send someone up to explain what it meant, and then probably you would get a decision—a decision which you yourself could have given in two minutes. I will give an illustration. We wanted a wire rope for 3,000 yards of haulage. We wrote, but we did not get a reply for some considerable time, though it was absolutely necessary to have this rope for the safety of the mine. Eventually, after we had put the whole facts before them, they sent us an order to buy one-half of it! Fancy putting people like myself and other owners who have been at the business all our lives under people who know so little of what they are doing as that. I have a great regard for the officials; I recognise their ability; but you cannot expect them to deal with questions of that kind where they have had no experience. I do rot know whether my friend Sir Richard Redmayne advised them or not, but if he did he ought to have known better; and it does not say much to his credit if he did so advise them.
Another question that has been touched upon is the reduction of output. This is a very serious question. I see that the Coal Controller expected at least 250,000,000 tons to be produced during the next twelve months, but we now find that this is going to be very much lower. My experience of shorter hours—and I think my noble friend Lord Gainford will support me—is that it always reduces production.
LORD GAINFORD: Hear, hear.
LORD JOICEY: I heard Lord Leverhulme's admirable speech where he said said that his product ion had gone up. He is a fortunate man; and no doubt he depends largely on machinery. But so far as the coal trade is concerned, our experience has always been that a reduction of output follows. I am looking for a considerable reduction of output when we get to the seven and ultimately to the six hours; and when you consider that six hours from bank to bank means only five hours' work, I think you will agree with me that a considerable reduction in output is almost certain to take place. I see that some of the miners say that we shall have to employ

647
a great many more men. That will add to the cost of production, and will mean, of course, increased prices to the consumer.
Some time ago I heard a good deal of talk about America. America produces, as you know, at the present time 770 tons per man per annum. Our production is about 240 tons per man per annum. I was anxious to know the reason for this, so I sent two of my managers over to go through the various important American mines to see if they could learn anything. They came to the conclusion that a certain portion of it was due, of course, to the better seams they had. One seam was 13 feet; but these patriotic gentlemen worked only 5 feet of it, and the rest would be lost. When our manager said, "You are losing a great deal of coal," they replied, "There is plenty more to go to." Then, again, the machinery they adopted was pretty much what we adopt here. However, the general result of their inquiry was that we had nothing to learn from America in the way of working our coal; that we had far greater difficulties with which to contend; and they came to the conclusion that our system was very much better than the American. But my managers said that what they were astonished at was the way the men worked. They worked long hours and extremely hard, right up to their full capacity.
I am not going to say anything with regard to the working of our pit miners. Most of them work hard; it is not easy work down a mine, and I give them credit for it. But there are many who do not do that. The loss of production has been put down to the number of men taken for the Army. Our own production has gone down about 40 per cent. because we sent several thousands of men to fight our battles, and you can understand why it should go down. Again, it is said that some of the men we got back after being away four or five years were not able to work so well. I understand that it takes some time before they get into the system of working; their hands are soft, and probably, having got out of the method of working coal, for a time they are not able to put in all the grit and effort they were accustomed to do when they were in good form. But there is another cause which I think is one of the main causes of our reduced production.
For centuries we had been accustomed to pay our miners on their output—that is, to pay them by the piece—but of late
648
years a system of minimum wage has been introduced. That minimum wage, when it was first introduced, was small, and the difference between what a man could earn in piece work and what he earned under his minimum wage was quite sufficient to make him work in order to get a large production. Gradually, however, that minimum wage has gone up and at the present time, in Durham, we are paying a minimum wage of 13 s. 8d. per day plus free house and coal. There are many men who are quite content with that and they do not see why they should exert themselves if they can get that by working half as hard as they have been accustomed to work. I believe to a large extent—at all events to a certain extent—that accounts for the reduction of the output par man, and I do hope that if His Majesty's Government can bring any pressure to bear on the miners' leaders, they will impress upon them the necessity of urging all men to work up to their full capacity. As to whether they will work better for private enterprise or under Government my experience has been that men work better under private enterprise. You can go to our shipbuilding yards or dockyards and, I feel sure, if you compare the work done in the dockyards with that done in our private yards, you will find that the men work very much better under private enterprise than they do in connection with Government work.
I cannot help looking at the serious position that this country will be in unless, by some means, we can keep down the cost of coal. The tendency is for it to go up. Many of your Lordships have, no doubt, read the speech which was delivered by Sir Auckland Geddes in another place on Monday night. It was a very excellent speech, which I think put the facts, the incontrovertible facts, before the House of Commons. These facts are not guess work. As your Lordships may not know, the Coal Controller gets a balance sheet for every colliery in this Kingdom. A most skilful accountant, Mr. Dickinson, and his staff are employed. He has taken out all these figures from the actual book of facts put before him and certified by accountants in every district, so that there can be no doubt whatever about the statement being true. Those of your Lordships who have not read the speech I would recommend to do so, because it is well worth reading.

649
What will be the effect if these high prices continue? First, our industries will suffer—various trades like the steel trade, where we find now the Americans are able to sell steel to many of our customers at £3 or £4 a ton cheaper than we can produce it. It is the same with many other manufactures, and I look at the future with alarm, because, unless we can get increased production to compensate for the higher prices, I am afraid we shall suffer most seriously from the competition of America, Germany and, probably, Japan. I know from my own experience that the Americans are now sending their coal to the Mediterranean and beating the British coal-owner. I know they are sending it to Norway, because we have had contracts taken from us. They are sending it at a lower price than we are able to give. How important the export of coal is. At present the price we are getting from home consumers is less than the cost. I was looking at some figures the other day and I found in a large concern that the cost of coal sold to home consumers in this country was 5s. a ton less than we were getting from the home consumer. The Coal Controller has had to put up the price because the exports are falling down. What paid the 5s. was the price of the exports. If you cut down exports, on which high prices are paid by the foreigner, you must make it up somewhere and the only way is to increase the cost to the home consumer. These are facts which are indisputable.
Then again, if we cut down our exports, many of our vessels will have to go out under ballast. That means that the freight which is paid for the export of coal will have to go on to the goods that we import—the iron ore and the food supply. That means that we shall have to pay more for our food. Coal is the only thing we do export in bulk. Unless we have the coal to export we shall certainly not be able to get our food supplies and our raw material at anything like the price for which we have been accustomed to have them. Take another point. If we do not export our coal for which we get high prices, we shall not have the wherewithal to pay for the food supplies at all, which is a very serious question. Depend upon it this question of export is a very much more serious one than many people realise Look at the effect on the exchange. We are already seeing the exchange go against us in America, but if our export of coal is much reduced we shall find it against us in
650
many places besides America. It is a most serious matter and I do think that, before going into the question of nationalisation, we should take into consideration all these points.
It is not my intention to devote any time—I was going to do so, but I shall reserve what I have to say—to the question of nationalisation until the evidence is published and one has had a chance of seeing the evidence which led to the decisions which have been given by the various groups on the Coal Commission. I do think it is time that the Government realised our position. It is no use, for the sake of pleasing a section of the people, to put a tax on the whole community and interfere with the prosperity of the whole community. I hope the Government, whatever the consequences may be, will take that into consideration and will put its foot down where it sees that the general interest runs against that of any section of the population.
LORD INCHCAPE: My Lords, I do not often venture to address your Lordships' House, and I hope I may permitted to say a few words to-day on the question of the nationalisation of industry. I will try to be brief. Take the case of coal. Does the demand collie from the customers of the coal companies? Is there any complaint on the part of steel makers, manufacturers, shipowners, gas companies, or private consumers that they were badly treated by the coal owners before the war, before Government assumed control, and when there was free play and prices were regulated by supply and demand? Take the case of the railways. Can any country with State controlled lines show that the public had a better service, greater facilities, greater civility than that rendered by the privately-owned and privately-managed railways in this country before the war? Take the case of shipping, the nationalisation of which was urged in some quarters not long ago, but has now been definitely abandoned. Was there any niggardly policy pursued by the shipowners? The Prime Minister in a recent speech declared that without our Navy and our Mercantile Marine the war would have collapsed in six months.
In some quarters it was regarded as a fitting reward to those who had by their energy and individual effort raised British shipping to the position it occupied before the war to wrest it from them and to hand

651
it over to Government officials. The Prime Minister was not of this way of thinking, and I am glad to say he decided to leave this great branch of British industry to those but for whom, as he said, Germany would have irretrievably beaten us by February, 1915.
The nationalisation of industry, as it is called, is nothing more or less than Syndicalism. It is proposed, not in the interests of the public as a whole, but in what I am perfectly satisfied would prove to be fallacious, solely in the interest of some particular class. As a profit-making proposition I venture to say that no industry could be successfully worked by the State. The personal interest, the personal touch, the secret sympathy, so necessary to secure loyalty, efficient management, and administration, would be altogether wanting, competition would be obliterated, and the disposition to accommodate constituents, so necessary for success, would completely disappear in the hands of autocratic servants of the State with the Consolidated Fund behind them. It would not benefit the workers.
The people of these Islands are for the most part industrious; they make their money, as John Smith did, by minding their own business, and they do not as a rule pay much attention to political movements until they realise that there is some insidious attempt to attack their liberty. The first of these attempts was aimed at shipping. That has gone by the board. The second is aimed at coal mines. The third, although we are assured that the great Dictator has an open mind on the subject, is aimed at railways. The public are now getting thoroughly alarmed. They realise that if the two great industries, coal and railways, built up by private enterprise, are taken over by the Government all other industries in the country will be endangered, and we shall end up by attempting to earn our livelihood by taking in each other's washing.
What in the story of the recent great war have we to regret as regards either our fiscal policy or the freedom we have enjoyed? Have all of those who had capital at their command not responded wholeheartedly to the needs of the nation? Is there anything to show that we have failed as a fighting race, or that our financial position was unsound? As the Prime Minister recently stated, we have raised
652
in taxes and loans to carry on the war no less than £9,000,000,000, and since Mr. Lloyd George made that statement, and within the last few days, the country has subscribed to the Victory Loan as much as £500,000,000 or £600,000,000 of new money. The figures are colossal and have a deadening effect on the sense of proportion. I believe that every one who has saved anything has contributed according to his means; the poor as well as the rich have all put their money on the favourite "God save the King"—and, my Lords, the favourite will win.
We are left to-day with a National Debt of something in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000,000. Our pre-war expenditure on defence and administration and interest on the pre-war debt of £800,000,000, was about £220,000,000. When we add well-deserved pensions to this, and other charges entailed by the war, the expenditure we shall have to provide for will not be less than £250,000,000, probably a good deal more, but I have no desire to overstate the case. To this will have to be added the interest and sinking fund on at least £7,000,000,000, which at 6 per cent. will for many years require £420,000,000 annually, or a total expenditure of £670,000,000.
I am satisfied, my Lords, that the inhabitants of these Islands will be able to meet this charge, and that our credit will remain unimpaired, but only and only if certain conditions are observed. The most rigid economy will have to be exercised by the Government, be the Government Coalition, be it Conservative, be it Liberal, or be it Labour. Wildcat uneconomic schemes involving enormous expenditure will have to be ruthlessly turned down, and our sense of proportion will have to be recovered. We must get rid of the inflation created by paper currency; we must abandon the idea of spending our capital; and we must live within our income. We must leave the industries of the country to work out their own salvation in the future, as they have so well done in the past; we must free them from bureaucratic control, and we must evacuate the great hotels, the numerous houses and the wooden shanties, which are now occupied by unproductive thousands.
My Lords, if I am not mistaken we must face a very much higher bank rate than 5 per cent. if we are to get the prices of commodities down to anything like a reason

653
able figure, and if we are to get away from the vicious circle in which we are now living. In the future, as in the past, prices will go down when the bank rate goes up, and nothing short of this will enable us to get rid of the inflated currency necessitated by the war. The whole financial structure to-day is artificial; we must get back to a sound policy. It appears to be overlooked in some quarters that the captains of industry, the brain workers, the organisers, are operating while they are alive more for the Government than for themselves, and that when they die any surplus of the income which they may not have spent goes in a great measure to the nation. I believe that large Death Duties such as those which are now in operation are economically unsound. They may appear an easy way of getting revenue for the time, but they mean living on capital. They induce extravagance in those who are alive, and it would in my humble judgment be better for the future of the country if we confined our expenditure to our income rather than to drawing on our capital. This is what every prudent man does in his own or in the business affairs which he is entrusted to manage, and I fail to see why we should follow for the nation as a whole a course which we do not adopt for ourselves as individuals, if we want to keep the resources of the nation sound.
Nationalisation of industry, or Syndicalism, would destroy the whole fabric on which the prosperity of the nation rests, and if it were adopted a generation or two would see Great Britain lowered to the position of a fourth-class Power, her magnificent trade gone, her population reduced by one-half, her resources bankrupt, and her credit extinct. My Lords, this is a gloomy sketch, and we will never see it on canvas. The good sense of our countrymen will prevail in the future as it has done in the past. But in the meantime if agitators are listened to, if unsound propaganda continues to poison the minds of ignorant people, we may be confronted with a period during which there may be serious strikes, lockouts, and other troubles. If, unfortunately, these should occur, I hope we may get through them without greatly prolonged dislocation and disturbance; but if necessary we must as patriots, in the best interests of the country, in the best interests of the working classes themselves, face the situation boldly, feeling assured that everything will eventually come right. There may be a few Bol
654
shevists in these Islands, but they do not number more than one in a hundred thousand, and our people, both men and women, are far too sensible to be led along a path which would inevitably lead to destruction, not only to themselves individually but to the nation as a whole.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, hitherto the speeches have been entirely in one direction. I will ask your Lordships' indulgence while I say something of a somewhat different kind. I have listened with the deepest interest to the speech which my noble friend has just delivered. It is, if may venture to say so, a delight to us all to hear him speak, because he does so with full experience and knowledge, on the basis of a very great reputation in the commercial world, and his remarks are always full of sanity. He will forgive me, however, if I say that in the great problem which he discussed today, the gravity of which he did not exaggerate, he hardly gave due attention to the more immediate and even more pressing problem which was the one that the Government had to face when it appointed the Coal Commission.
I am not a regular supporter, nor even a general supporter, of the Government, but I must say I think the Government served the country well in appointing that Commission, and I am going to give my reasons for thinking so. It is all very well for you' Lordships sitting here in the dog-days of July, with no coal strike threatened for the moment, to talk in an easy way about "No surrender" and about talking sense to the working classes and insisting upon their seeing things in the light of good sense. But let me recall the concluding days of last February. We were under the very shadow of a tremendous national coal strike. It was a few hours off. The Government were called upon to deal with the situation immediately, because if not the country might be plunged into chaos and disaster. That had to be averted, and the Government took steps which led to the appointment of the Sankey Commission, which has made two Reports. On the first Report I will not touch, because it was temporary and was intended to avert the strike which threatened. The second Report was part of the pledge which was given that the matter should be inquired into more generally.
The noble Duke, in the speech which he made earlier in the debate, made a very

655
strong attack upon Mr. Justice Sankey and upon his Report, and I think the noble Duke has somewhat misread that Report, and that his criticisms were directed to just the point that Mr. Justice Sankey did not make. In the course of the debate one would have imagined that Mr. Justice Sankey recommended the immediate nationalisation of the coal mines. I will show in a moment that he recommended nothing of the sort. What I want to say is this, that the Government were face to face with this tremendously critical situation, and that the only way of postponing it, if not ultimately averting it, was by an inquiry. The ordinary way of inquiring was by Royal Commission, and the noble Duke asked, Why not appoint a Commission of impartial men who would sit and take evidence? Such a Commission would have taken two years, and two years were not available. It was more like a matter of two weeks. The Government appointed at once a Committee, which I concede contained partisans of both sides—people of great knowledge and very strong views—and they appointed perhaps the very best Judge they could have got from the Judicial Bench to sit and listen to the contending views of those parties, and then in the end give his deliberate opinion as chairman, if possible carrying them with him but at least giving his judicial opinion upon the result of what was said in a manner which might give guidance to the nation and to the contending parties. There may be a great deal to be said against taking Judges away from their proper sphere for work of this kind, but in the particular situation which the Government had to face it was essential to get somebody who would approach this question as a question of evidence with a judicial mind, and do his best to bring the two sections of opinion together, and I venture to think that Mr. Justice Sankey did his work admirably.
Then the noble, Duke attacked Mr. Smillie. Now Mr. Smillie and the noble Duke are both men of strong personality, and men of strong personality living in different atmospheres and holding radically different views are apt to hold strong opinions about each other. I neither agree with Mr. Smillie's opinion of the noble Duke nor with the noble Duke's view of Mr. Smillie. They are both eminent men, and I think wither quite does justice to the qualities of the other. Mr. Smillie is certainly a man of tremendous character
656
and force of leadership, and his views may be fanatical and may be steeped in the atmosphere of Socialism, but that is his creed, just as Toryism is the creed of the noble Duke. As to other members, who were not miners, on the Commission, to whom the noble Duke referred, anybody who knows Mr. Tawney, with his distinguished Oxford reputation, or Mr. Sidney Webb, who has devoted the work of a lifetime to the investigation of these problems, knows that they are men who have brought to the study of these questions the highest devotion, and I think they are entitled to be treated with more respect than they have sometimes received in the course of these discussions.
But now I come to what is my main complaint in this debate. We have been discussing the wrong point. We have been discussing very large questions of syndicalism and nationalisation, and great movements which are in progress, by the way not so much in this country as in other countries. They are in progress here. We get the hack-wash, but I think we may be thankful, measuring all that is going on, that we live in as quiet a country as we do, and that although our industrial tumults are great they are not comparable to the tumults which obtain in continental countries and which obtain, even as I myself know well, in the Western part of the United States and in Canada. In this House I have sometimes been struck with the extent to which we have got out of relationship with public opinion in the country. When I say public opinion I do not mean ripe opinion, I do not mean the opinion of everybody, I mean the opinion of the vast majority. We live in this country under a democracy in a sense that we did not a few years ago. The very extension of the franchise has changed matters altogether. You cannot talk of any great body of industrials in the way you could even five years ago. Then they were a class, important no doubt, who could to some extent be dealt with as a class, which you could influence, and influence by powerful persuasion, but now they are organised. They are not only tremendously organised politically, and will probably be much more so, but they are organised industrially in the federations of trade unions, and if you fight with the miners it is not improbable that you may find yourselves fighting the railwaymen and transport workers too.

657
Under these conditions it is all very beautiful to talk of no surrender, but suppose you do not surrender, what then? The noble Lord opposite who is to speak in this debate knows better than we do the state of things last February. I do not for a moment think the Government did what they did on the basis of surrender. I think they did it with a view to seeing whether some solution could not be got of a very great problem. What is that problem? There are certain industries which may be described as arterial because the life blood of the nation flows in them. They are the mines, the railways, and, in great part, the transport. It is becoming more and more a very serious question whether we can afford any longer to leave those industries under private control. The coalowners have given us to-day, and they gave before the Royal Commission, their accounts of how they would deal with these things. "Leave us alone, and we will manage the miners." Yes, but they cannot manage the miners, and they do not manage the miners, and we have strikes, and we have had them increasingly; and now the miners are in a position of greater and greater power, and they say the mine-owners do not understand them and cannot work with them, and they want a different order of things.
There is a case for inquiry whether a different order of things is possible, for if it be possible I am certain that we ought to have it. It is not good that these industries on which the nation's very life depends should be left to the accident of private mistake. Of course, it may be true that the State cannot manage those industries as well as private employers. I am not going to discuss nationalisation to-night for the simple reason that I do not know whether nationalisation is practicable or not. It remains to be seen. But what I am going to say is that it ought to be investigated, and I hope to hear from the Government that it will be investigated. I think there has been a great misapprehension in this debate as to the nature of the Sankey Report. The first and cardinal point in the Sankey Report is this in paragraph 3—
"I recommend that the scheme for local administration hereinafter set out, or any modification of it adopted by Parliament, be immediately set up with the aid of the Coal Controllers Department, and that Parliament be invited to pass legislation acquiring the coal mines for the State, after the scheme has been worked for three years from the date of this Report, paying fair and just compensation to the owners."
658
There is a pronouncement in favour of the principle of nationalisation, but in futuro. First of all you are to have a preliminary period of inquiry. It may turn out during the period that you have not been able to make any system which will enable nationalisation to take place, and in that case the situation is to be reconsidered. But that it is not to be taken on the footing that such a system exists at the present time is plain from what followed subsequently in the Report.
In paragraph 41 the learned Judge says what I, too, from outside, hold very strongly. The existing Civil Service organisation is wholly inadequate for dealing with the great question of State management. If I were asked to vote for nationalisation on the basis of the Civil Service taking over the mines I should refuse. I should say it was certain to be a failure. But that is not what Mr. Justice Sankey recommended. What lie said is this—
"The Civil Servant has not been trained to run an industry, but the war has demonstrated the potentiality of the existence of a new class of men (whether already in the service of the State or not) who are just as keen to serve the State as they are to serve a private employer, and who have been shown to possess the qualities of courage in taking initiative necessary for the running of an industry. Hitherto State management of industries has on balance failed to prove itself free from serious shortcomings, but these shortcomings are largely due to the neglect of the State to train those who are to be called on for knowledge and ability in management."
Those of us who have been in contact with the work of the Navy and the Army know that so far as public spirit and devotion is concerned you will get from the best of the officer class a devotion quite equal to what you get from the private person in pursuit of gain. You find a passion for excellence which is hardly to be rivalled in its strength in any other sphere of life. It has been readily possible in the Army and the Navy to develop that spirit in a very limited sphere of administration, and the question which arises is whether the same class cannot be brought by proper training into the service of the State for these new industries. You have three years for the experimental period. I shall not say take only Army and Navy officers and train them, but I say take your best men wherever you can get them. You can get a number just now from several sources; you can get them from private industry and train them. There are men who would be proud to come and serve the State for

659
the credit and honours which come to people who serve the State successfully in such a connection. It is not necessary to do it on a large scale, but it is essential that the State should turn its mind to the business of training for this entirely new service, and should turn to work upon it very thoroughly.
I do not think that in this country we half appreciate what can be done by training in developing the mind and capacity for State work of the people concerned. Our training has been of a very narrow class—either Civil Service traditions or traditions in the Services of a different order from those of which I have been speaking—and we have not yet put to ourselves the question, Can we by an adequate system of training produce men of the type I speak of, with that largeness of outlook and that keenness of spirit which will enable them to do the entirely new business of working these industries? Look on the analogy. A company commander commands his men. How does he command them? if he be a first-rate officer he has lived with them; he has seen to their comfort before he has seen to his own; he has gone on the march with them, and has seen that accommodation was ready for them; he has shared their dangers, and has been a pioneer in those dangers. They will follow him to the death, and they will follow him whatever advice he gives to them, or whatever order he gives. Is it impossible to introduce something of that spirit into the organisation of the mines? Mr. Justice Sankey apparently thinks not. He goes on, in the latter part of his Report at any rate, to lay down a sketch of an organisation which might accomplish these things. Why did the learned Judge take this grave step? The reason is given in paragraph 33—
"It is true that in the minds of many men there is a fear that State ownership may stifle incentive, but to-day we are faced in the coalfields with increasing industrial unrest and a constant strife between modern labour and modern capital. I think that the danger to be apprehended from the certainty of the continuance of this strife in the coal mining industry outweighs the danger arising from the problematical fear of the risk of the loss of incentive."
Mr. Justice Sankey is just as well aware as your Lordships are of the disadvantages of State enterprise conducted upon the lines upon which we have hitherto conducted it. He knows that there is considerable risk about the success of the new
660
venture, but w hat he says is that the situation is so grave that act you must, and that this is the method by which you can act with the best prospect of success. He is not saying "Nationalise immediately," he is saying, "Take this preliminary period, and be in earnest and be serious about this question of training."
To me the situation is one of the utmost gravity. I, for my part, do not see the means by which the noble Duke is going to bring about the victory of the principles for which he speaks. The miners are very differently organised from what they were ten years ago; they are twice as powerful politically, and they are in alliance with other great industrial bodies, with the railway men and with the transport men. But I am not, any more than he is, saying that you should surrender even to these great forces. On the contrary, I want to get rid of these difficulties; I want to do what the Government tried to do, to get a via media along which we may go and which may bring the conflicting interests together. I know of no reasons why there should be conflict between the miners and the State.
One of the great recommendations of nationalisation is that the State, after all, is to a very large extent the miners themselves, and that you do not have the same acute conflict of interests that you have when you are dealing with private persons bargaining with one another. Well, if you attain that, you have attained a great national deliverance from a standing peril. Whether we can attain it we cannot tell until we have seen whether Mr. Justice Sankey's experimental plan will work. But I think the learned Judge had the greatest justification for saying that you are face to face with a tremendous danger which may overwhelm you at any moment, and you are very unwise unless you try to deal with it, and that the only way in which you can deal with it is by averting it, by changing the conditions so that these conditions are such that a sharp conflict of interests is not likely to arise.
There is one more thing I should like to say. I should like to appeal to the Government to take up this question of training the new staff—because the existing Coal Controller's staff is obviously inadequate for this great purpose—but this new staff which is to bring about results of a different quality from anything we have had up to this time. I would appeal to the Govern-

661
ment to take that matter at once and earnestly in hand. There is no one in the House who has a better understanding of the way in which to deal with it than the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Milner), who has been engaged in the study of these questions personally for a very long time. I think that he must feel what I feel, that the situation is one of the utmost gravity, that it is not to be solved by taking one or other of two abstract alternatives, that the only way of dealing with the problem is to get rid of it, to avert it, by bringing the miners under the leadership and control of a different set of men from those with whom they have been associated exclusively in the past, and with whom they have got into relations which, if for the moment very quiet, yet threaten the State at no very distant future.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I do not know whether I may intervene at this moment as having been present nearly the whole time whilst, the evidence was being given before the Coal Commission. Having listened to that evidence and to the cross-examination I have come to certain definite conclusions in connection with the character of the evidence given, and I join with Lord Joicey in hoping that there may be an early publication of the evidence. I do not understand the delay in the publication of, at any rate, the first part of the evidence, and I would press the Government to produce it at the earliest moment, in order that the full weight of that evidence may be considered by the public as a whole.
Before dealing with some points raised by the Coal Commission's Report I should like to refer to the question of the continuation of what we regard as bureaucratic control. During the last eight months, in the transition period from war to peace, we have all patiently endured Government control, and there has been a very good opportunity for the country to realise its advantages and disadvantages So far as I have been able to form an opinion, there is only one view held about the desirability at the earliest possible moment of de-controlling all the industries of which the Government has taken charge.
During the last eight months we have all been disappointed that unproductive employment has not given way to reproductive employment on a greater scale. We have all recognised that, whilst some extravagance was inevitable during the war, strict
662
economy has not been substituted for that extravagance during the last eight months. The Government and certain Labour leaders, moreover, have emulated one another in drawing out of the national resources increased support for those engaged in many industries when those industries could not economically afford either the restriction of hours or the increases of wages which have been given to them. This, in turn, has prevented industrial development, which is so essential at the present moment if we are to give good employment and to reconstruct after the devastation caused by the war. It has also, I believe, prejudiced the future prosperity and the well being of our people, and I am anxious to bring home to the people of this country what really would be the effect of further Government control in the direction of nationalisation, which a certain number of theorists, socialists, revolutionists, and a certain body of the less intelligent workers, are advocating at the present moment. I think the Government may be criticised for not having looked sufficiently ahead and not having seen sufficiently the effects of such concessions as they have felt bound, under the emergencies which have been created, to give to the working-classes. They have accepted in spirit and in letter the first Report of Mr. Justice Sankey which was interpreted by the miners as an admission that the Government were in favour of nationalisation. I know that the Government have not accepted that interpretation; but the miners assert the acceptance of that Report in the way it was accepted led them to believe that the Government were in favour of the nationalisation of the coal industry.
The Armistice period has shown, I think, that industries cannot be well managed by the Government. I am all in accord with the noble and learned Viscount who spoke last when he asserts that it is important that men should be trained; I am all for the thorough training of men to carry on the industries of this country. But what I suggest to your Lordships is that however well men are trained they will never do the same efficient and effective work for the Government, under any Government system which has hitherto been found to operate in any country, as they will under a well-conducted private enterprise scheme. It is impossible for a Government to run a business on the same economic lines as a private individual.

663
Inspection, and the payment of inspectors in every branch of the service, must be greater for the State than it would be under any form of properly conducted private enterprise. You need only look at the waste of petrol by every Government servant who is in charge of a Government motor car, and compare that wastage with the economy which is practised by a servant employed by any individual or firm. In Government employment you cannot eliminate the inefficient workers so long as those inefficient members of the public service are moral in character, honest in conduct, and attend regularly to their calling. It therefore follows that Government running, under control or under nationalisation, of any industrial concern must be convicted of more costly and extravagant management; and at the same time a sort of deadening and sterilising effect in connection with improvement is always apparent, and dilatoriness is always manifest, wherever you have Government Departments, in attending to its work day by day.
One business firm dealing with another expects to get a reply the following day, but one never expects to get a reply from a Government Department on the following day in connection with anything which may be placed before it. Whenever Government take control there is absence of competition, and it is only competition which secures progress, invention, and improvement, by which industries can progress, and progress be secured for the community. Take the simple case of the municipalisation of trams. The public like a regular service for all the individuals in a town and they elect to have municipal trains. In a very few years those municipal trains become antiquated, but they cannot be replaced because there is no competition. The ratepayers' representatives are not going to allow motor-'buses—which can give a much better, quicker, and cheaper service—to replace those tramways because it would be such an increased cost to the ratepayers, who have already got an antiquated service.
Thus it is that wherever you get private enterprise you get competition and improvement; wherever you get services and industries under Government control you become antiquated and behind-hand. Our experience is that Government services and Government industries after a few years are always run at a loss and have to be
664
subsidised by the State. The result of the control which is going on at the present time—the outcome of the war—means that there is less credit in the country, less confidence in the future; a sort of creeping paralysis in connection with fresh investments in all enterprise; and there is a tendency for capital not to fight—because capital never fights itself—but to fly away. The difficulty is to bring home to the workers and to the consumers that nationalisation and Government control spell disaster—first of all to the worker (who will be the first to suffer); then to the capitalist; and ultimately it means bankruptcy for the State.
May I give two illustrations of the sort of thing to which I object in connection with Government expenditure? The Government have recently converted the Munitions Department into a Supply Department. The only justification for a Supply Department is that it shall be a new spending Department. Before the war I thought we had enough spending Departments, but now we are going to have a new bureau which is going to be nothing else than a spending Department and which will have to justify itself as a spending Department. There are two propositions which I think most business men will appreciate. One is that if you are going to buy successfully so far as you can you make the user of the goods responsible for the purchase of the goods, and if you do that he is sure to make shift with all the goods he buys because the responsibility is on him, and he will do his utmost in a way which is quite impossible when the goods are bought for him by a third party. The other principle is that the more directly you get the purchaser and the salesman together you will produce satisfaction between the two, and you will eliminate the middleman and all wasteful expenditure in connection with the transaction. Now, a Supply Department naturally thinks that it knows best what other Departments ought to consume. It thinks it knows how and when to buy goods. But the result will always be an accumulation of a large quantity of stores which were never wanted and never ordered by the different Government Departments. It will mean wastage, friction, and extravagance. I know it is suggested that before the war two Government Departments sometimes purchased the same goods at different price and

665
therefore one Department purchased the goods at a cheaper rate than the other. But that kind of incident can easily be got over by a system of examination and comparison of accounts, and it does not require a new Government Department to deal with incidents of that character.
May I now go from a general illustration to a particular illustration? When a Government are seen to be extravagant (as I believe this Government has been during the last few months) each Department seems to think that it can spend as much as it likes. We have had an illustration of that in Paris. The Foreign Office goes over to Paris and occupies a large number of hotels, in the most extravagant part of Paris they could possibly find, without any arrangement as to what is to be paid for those hotels; and they have been spending money during the Peace Conference at an enormous rate at the public expense. The other day I asked when the Majestic Hotel—the most expensive hotel in Paris on account of its situation—was going to be given up. I was told that the Foreign Office no longer needed it but that it was going to be occupied by what is called the Supreme Economic Council. It is not surprising, when the workers see money spent as it has been spent during the war, and as it has continued to be spent, on too extravagant a scale in recent months, that they regard the State as possessing a bottomless purse. It is not surprising, when they can make demands on the State and every demand that they make is conceded, that the workers themselves think that a system of nationalisation would mean for the workers a period of ease, leisure, recreation, and prosperity.
After two years of management of the coal trade by the Government it is in a more unsatisfactory condition than, I believe, has been the case in the history of the country. I put it down entirely to Government control and the loss of that touch (to which the noble Lord, Lord Inchcape, alluded) which is so essential between owners and men in the carrying on of any industry. What are the facts in connection with the coal industry? It Was alleged that in the September quarter last year the owners made a profit of 3s. 6d. per ton on the average of the output for the whole country. That 3s. 6d. is not profit which went into the pockets of the coal owners. The coal
666
owners were guaranteed profits, according to their respective standard years, under the Act which gave effect to the coal agreement. The whole of the profits which were made in that September quarter, mainly out of the very high prices realised for the export of coal to neutral countries, went into the pocket of the Exchequer. Only 3½ per cent. of excess profits was allowed to the coal industry, and of that only a very small proportion would ever reach the shareholder in the form of a dividend.
But we were in great difficulties. There was a reluctance on the part of a large number of compositors in the country to insert in the Press information which was detrimental to Mr. Smillie and his friends, and it came about that there was a general belief that the coal industry had been an extremely prosperous industry in the past, whereas the figures which were ultimately brought before the attention of the Coal Commission showed that the coal mining industry received a less return from the investment of its capital than many of the other great staple industries of the country. Because of these abnormal profits which were suggested to the country, it was proposed to Mr. Justice Sankey and the Government that they should accept a system of higher wages for the men and shorter hours. These suggestions were made, I admit, in a critical situation and at a moment when the peace negotiations were, perhaps, most difficult to carry through. The grounds upon which they were accepted by the Government, I think, were not grounds relating to the evidence placed before the Commission but, grounds of expediency in order to avoid the disturbance which would be created by the threatened action of the triple alliance.
The important, point is that after two years of control the Government have now had to ask the consumers of the country to pay 6s. per ton more for the coal in order to make the industry self-supporting. The only alternative to that 6s. is that the output of coal must be enormously increased, because it becomes apparent, if the Government is going to carry on an industry at a loss, that State bankruptcy must inevitably occur. The cost of production has risen in my judgment through the Government not realising the true position. The concessions which have been made have been a potent factor in reducing the output which tie Government are

667
anxious should be increased. These concessions have reacted on costs when the economic condition of the industry would not stand any increase in cost at all. The Sankey award of 2s. a shift was given on the understanding that there would be increased output per man per shift. I cannot call it an undertaking, but there was an indication of an intention on the part of the leaders of the men that that would be so. Instead of there being any increase there has been an actual reduction in the output per man per shift as the result of the distribution of that 2s. per shift which was recommended by Mr. Justice Sankey and conceded by the Government. I only hope, in the event of the miners undertaking to improve their output in the future on the condition that the increase of 6s. per ton should be postponed, at any rate for a period, that we may see better and happier results.
I agree with Lord Joicey when he speaks of how, under Government control, the minimum wage of workmen has been increased. It has been increased in the county of Durham and in other counties in the same way, though the figures are different. I speak of Durham because I know it best, There the minimum wage has gone up from 8s. 8d. per shift to 13 s. 8d. That means that the average workman—I want us to put ourselves in the position of one of these men—can go down into a pit for seven hours for four days a week; he has seventeen hours each day above ground to himself; he gets his house free and his coal free; and he can get 13 s. 8d. per day for his services on those four days. He need not do more than nominal work. He may go to the coal face and send up only a few cwts. to the surface and he still gets 13 s. 8d. per day. Is it not natural for a man to say, "Well by going down the colliery on four days a week I can get 60 s. For my own household I do not want more than 40 s. or 42 s., and I have got 18 s. for my beer and tobacco and to pursue my other tastes"? These men, naturally, are quite content with their minimum wage, and they do not want to send up more coal than it is just barely necessary to send up to show that they have been working at the face.
The result, in a group of collieries with which I am associated, is that whereas about three years ago only 10 per cent. of the men were receiving the minimum wage, to-day more than half the men are
668
receiving the minimum wage, and they are not doing their best. It is idle to suggest that it is a question of tubs, or of wagons, or of timber, or of safety. The mines in this country are the safest in the world. There are no collieries so safe for the miner as those in this country. The miner is just as safe in a colliery as any individual is in the streets of London at the present time. The number of accidents per day in the streets of London is similar to the number of accidents in the collieries of the country. That came out in the evidence before the Commission. In these circumstances it is not surprising that the output of the men has gone down.
May I run through the figures in order that the House may realise what the men can do and what the restriction of hours means in the reduction of output? In 1906 and 1907 the average output per man employed at the collieries was 294 tons a year. The Eight Hours Act then came into operation and there was immediately a reduction from 294 to 268 tons per year. In 1913 it had gone down a little—to 259 tons a year. Wages were fairly good in that year, but the output was a little less as compared with 1909. But in 1918, with these high wages, the output had gone down to 236 tons, and to-day, in spite of the Sankey Award, it has gone down to 212 tons per year, and with the further 10 per cent. reduction which the miners themselves admit will take place owing to the reduction of the hours from eight to seven it will go down to 190 tons per man per year for the year ending July next.
You have to compare that with the 650 tons of America before the war. Lord Joicey gave a higher figure as to what they were getting per man per year in America to-day. It is suggested that we ought to employ more men. The great difficulty in employing more men in order to secure an increased output is that we have not the houses for them to occupy. Housing really a serious problem. I contend that the coal-owners have done a great deal in connection with the housing of their men. No masters have done more in this respect than have the coal-owners for the men in their industry. They have set a good example to the Government who have never done anything in connection with the housing of their men prior to the war, and during the war there has only been the erection of huts where they required special work to be performed.

669
I should like to point out the absolute impossibility of nationalisation being applied to the export trade in coal. It is a very peculiar trade and has taken a lot of building up under private enterprise. We have met the requirements of the consumers of this country, and we have gradually built up an export trade from 16,000,000 tons to 76,690,000 tons per year. That was before the war. This export trade has been built up very largely by individuals getting to know individuals in foreign ports, making arrangements with them individually to take delivery of coal, making themselves generally responsible for shortage in weights, quality of coal, the difference in currency, and all other kinds of obligations which it would be quite impossible for any Government Department to undertake. Every one who knows the coal trade realises that it is quite impossible for the export trade to be conducted by a. Government, Department with any efficiency, and as it is vital to our interests that we should have such an export trade to encourage our import trade and the cheap introduction of raw materials and food into this country, I suggest on those grounds alone that it is right the country should realise that, whatever experiment is made in nationalisation, it ought not to be made in connection with the coal industry and the exportation of coal.
With regard to the exportation of coal, perhaps I ought to tell your Lordships that the Americans at the present moment can place on the seaboard of the Atlantic coal at 27 s. per ton, whilst the price between Allies and neutrals from this country, placed on the seaboard, has recently been from 30 s. to 70 s. per ton. The great difference arises as to whether the coal is sent to Allies or to neutral countries. That has created the subsidy, which has enabled the Government to carry on as they have during the last three years. My suggestion is that the Government should decontrol, and that they should enter into communication with the coal-owners of this country with a view of carrying out that policy. They have indicated through Sir Auckland Geddes in another place two days ago that they were about to introduce a Bill which would suggest an average profit to the coal-owners of 1s. 2d. per ton upon their respective outputs. I would like to say, here and now, that any such figure is not acceptable to the coal trade as a fair indication of the interest which they should be given in connection
670
with the enterprise they represent. First of all it is 6d. to 8d. below what was agreed by the Government in 1917 to give. Secondly, the rate of money has very much changed for the worse. It has become much higher in the interval, and we as coal-owners object to the continuation of these restrictions and limitations in connection with our enterprise when other people are allowed to run their business without this control, which hampers work, increases cost, and makes everybody complain and dissatisfied.
In regard to the nationalisation of royalties, all I have to say is that I believe any proposal to increase the liabilities of the country at the present time is inopportune. On principle I see no grave harm in the State purchasing the royalties. There are advantages, and there are disadvantages, but it is difficult to carry out because so many concerns work their own coal, and that creates a difficult problem. But it is because the State has nothing to gain by it that I suggest that at the moment it is inopportune. The State has sufficient liabilities to meet at the present without adding thereto.
As coal-owners we have made our own practical suggestion. The miners at the moment say they are not prepared to entertain any proposals whilst they are fighting for nationalisation. In January last the Durham miners, who are as well organised as any miners in the whole country, agreed with the owners that they would enter into a different arrangement to that which had hitherto prevailed. They agreed, instead of having their wages largely based on the selling price of coal, to accept the principle of having their percentage based upon the difference between the cost of production and the selling price. In that way a direct inducement would have been given to the miners, for the first time, to get as much coal per shift as possible, with the view of economising cost and so make the margin upon which they would obtain a percentage of profits greater. That principle was adopted by the Durham miners, but it was not carried into formal agreement at the time because of the incident which arose and which was pressed forward by Mr. Smillie and his Socialistic friends in the way we all know. I believe a system of that kind can be arranged with the men.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, referred to the impossibility of

671
ever again working smoothly with our men. I deny that. For years and years we have recognised that the coal trade is a difficult trade because the conditions are always ' varying. But we have the machinery of the Joint Committee, which enables the men's views to be heard and the answer to be given, and consideration to be given to all points of difference which arise from time to time. Speaking generally, the relationships between master and men in the coal trade have been very good, and certainly in the North of England, for which I speak, the relationships have been just as cordial as those in any other industry. I am certain that if we can get over these troublous times in which we at present exist, and which are very largely due to the unrest produced by the war, there is no reason why these relationships should not resume their old form and be in the future, as they have been in the past, quite cordial.
It may be said that it is very easy to criticise the Government in connection with their control and their management of the coal trade, and to point out that many of these difficulties have arisen from concession, which they have made. I admit that charge if it is made against me—that it is very easy to allege this sort of thing across the Table—but while I do recognise that the Government have had great difficulties, that they have had enormous work to 'perform in other directions, at the same time I do not think it is any justification why they should to any extent accept the principle of nationalisation which is being pressed upon them. I believe the time has come when we should be allowed to resume our freedom in enterprise and trade, which before the war produced all that wealth and that spirit which I believe acted so greatly to secure success in waging the past terrible war. I have endeavoured not to attack any individual, and I do not desire to attach any blame to any person, but I believe the system of private enterprise has in the past built up the country into a prosperous position. I do not believe in a system of bureaucracy and I believe that if it is followed it will lead to financial disaster and bankruptcy. It is because I hold that view so strongly that I have felt it my duty to intervene in this debate, for I am anxious to do all I can to save my country.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, it was said the other day in this House
672
that some of the newly-created Peers did not attend enough, or perhaps express their views enough, and it is somewhat refreshing to-day to listen to the views of very important men connected with the steel trade and the coal trade and other great industries. Before His Majesty's Government finally pledge themselves to nationalisation I should like to implore them, as Lord Gainford has done, to pause for a little while to consider the effect which it will have upon our export trade. I may assure your Lordships and the Labour Party that I am not interested in the coal trade in any way whatever, but in the past I have seen the ramifications of the export trade from our northern counties all over Europe, and I know the keen competition which there exists in regard to the big contracts taken by our coal exporters. Therefore I shudder to think of the future effect of nationalisation and the still further raising of the price of coal.
I hope the Government will allow the collieries to be denationalised, and let the colliery owners and managers, who are the finest business men in this country, have a chance of getting down the prices. The Government up to now have been working under difficulties. We had to defeat the enemy. We have done so. The reason for giving way to the constant and continual demands of labour no longer exist in the same way as they did a few months ago, and when you look back for some ten or twelve years, upon the records of the previous Government and the Government before that, and even of the present Government, you will find that we have always given way to the demands of labour. In some cases we gave way rightly. No one is more pleased to see men given good wages than I am, but if we are to lose our trade our ships will have to sail empty. If there are no cargoes of coal in the ships the freights on goods will have to be doubted, or even increased ten times to-day's high rates, and it looks very likely as if we shall not only lose our export trade in coal but almost certainly our export trade in goods.
Only look across the Atlantic and see what is going on there to-day. I think the output. of new steel ships last month was 700,000 tons. Every ship has to be employed, and we shall find the Americans exporting coal to all our old friends on the Continent who used to buy from us,

673
Once they get the trade it will be very difficult to get it back again. I have had experience in the burning of American coal, and as far as the steaming of ships goes I am sure it is superior to English coal. I always found that ships bunkered in New York went a good deal faster than ships which were burning English coal, and if the foreigner finds this out then good bye to our export trade. When you see that every ton of coal which is sent out is pure profit for this country you will see where we are going with this wild talk of nationalisation.
I have no doubt that if the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, were going to answer me he would say that the Commission had already decided upon this, but we have had good evidence to-day to show that some members of the Commission were not business men. They were great theorists and great Socialists, and they have made their way in the world by talking on those subjects. Is it fair that the great industries of this country should be jeopardised by a Commission which was largely composed of such men, and by' a Commission which did not listen to or call for full evidence from the colliery owners themselves? Before the Government decide upon nationalisation they will have to look for some alternative, if they are not going to give way to the men, and would it not be better in the next few weeks or months to face the fact that there may be a strike? We have had strikes before. The man in the street has got very tired of shivering in the winter and having no coal, and I cannot help thinking that in spite of the "Triple Alliance" saying they might all come out together, which I very much doubt, because they want coal in their houses, you will find a good many men outside the present miners who would go down into the mines and help get coal up if some scheme in this direction were produced. It is a question which the Government should take into consideration. I do not want to say anything against the colliers themselves. They are very fine men and splendid fellows. We all remember the gallant deeds done by the colliery battalions, the Northumberland Fusiliers and the King's Yorkshire Light Infantry, in the present war, but I think some of the leaders' present demands for short hours and high wages are jeopardising the whole trade of the country.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Government upon whom the loss of the 6s. a ton upon coal will fall during the three months the suspension of the increase of 6s. a ton is in force; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I only desire to intervene a moment or two in regard to the Question that I have on the Paper. I understand that the noble Viscount would like me to do it at this moment. The other day Sir Auckland Geddes said in the House of Commons—
"Inside the coal industry there is no doubt that there are factors at work tending to reduce output. Taking the side of the coal-owners first, we know that as the result of the Government adoption of the recommendations of the Interim Report of the Sankey Commission their profit is now fixed at 1s. 2d. per ton. It does not matter to them, therefore, how much the ton costs to raise, although it does matter the number of tons that are raised."
I notice that my noble friend Lord Gainford rather took exception to that, and seemed to imply that the coal-owners were not satisfied with the 1s, 2d. guarantee. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me whether it is the fact that Ole Government has guaranteed to all coal-owners that they should get 1s. 2d. per ton profit on all their coal. Does that include engine coal and bad coal? Is the object of the increase of 6s. to ensure that coal-owners shall at least get that profit of 1s. 2d.?
After that statement was made by Sir Auckland Geddes the Government suddenly announced, for reasons that we do not know, that they had changed their mind, and that at least until Monday, and possibly for three months, the 6s. was to be suspended. What I desire to ask the Government is, upon whom the loss of the 6s. per ton will fall during the three months that the increase of 6s. has been suspended. As far as I can see from the discussions in another place that point was not raised, and no one is aware who is to bear that loss. Perhaps the noble Viscount will be good enough to give me an answer upon that.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I have only one short remark to make with reference to a point in the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland). The noble Duke, I think, asked your Lordships whether you could confide in

675
the honour of Mr. Smillie of Mr. Smillie is not here, and he is perfectly well able to defend himself, but I should not like this to go out as it might give a wrong impression elsewhere with regard to that gentleman. Mr. Smillie is a man I have known for many years. He is a man who, if he makes an agreement—and he is a difficult man to cause to come to an agreement—will keep that agreement for all he is worth. As long ago as 1908 I was a party to a settlement in the Scottish coal trade. Mr. Smillie refused to sign that agreement on the ground that he wanted more. He had to be over-ruled by his executive, and the agreement was therefore the agreement of the trade union of the miners in Scotland. Although he had not signed it Mr. Smillie considered that he was bound by that agreement of his trade union, and he most loyally adhered to it.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I was not talking of the private honour of Mr. Smillie. I was merely saying that in view of his activity during the whole course of the war it was not consistent with the honour of the Government to base our future policy upon Mr. Smillie's word. I was not in any sense reflecting on the private honour of Mr. Smillie.
LORD ASKWITH: In regard to the noble Duke's remark, I am not dealing with Mr. Smillie's private word. I am dealing with his word of honour in adhering to any agreement that he may make as a trade agreement on behalf of his trade union. Not only was that the case on the occasion that I have mentioned, but I have been for several years dealing with the Scottish coal trade and I never heard any Scottish coal-owner attack Mr. Smillie on the ground that he was not keeping his agreement. Whether if he gave his word of honour—I do not know that he has pledged his honour—he would be able to induce his men to follow what he had done, is quite another matter; but I am sure that if he pledged his honour that he would do a thing he would try to get his men to do their best and would adhere to that proposition.
The only other remark I wish to make is that noble Lords who are connected with the coal trade and your Lordships and the public generally are up against three bald facts. There is going to be an increase in the rate of wages, which however it is arrived at and whether it be right or wrong
676
is going to take place. There is going to be a decrease in the number of hours to be worked, which whether right or wrong is almost as certain to take place, and which must cause a reduction in the amount of the production of coal. In addition to that there is going to be, and there is now, an alarming decrease in the amount of production of coal. The miners say that it is due to other causes than their own action. It is useless, of course, to say that the miners alone are responsible for it. Any one with their eyes open can see that there are difficulties in the supplies of other materials. Delays on the railways, delays of transport, delays of supplies generally are all factors in decreasing still further the production. It is a very serious proposition, and the number of tons by which per man the decrease is taking place at the present time shows what a serious proposition it is for the coming winter. The miners are proposing to try to increase that production.
Mr. Vernon Hartshorn, one of the ablest Welsh miners, made a speech the other day in the House of Commons in which he said that, nationalisation or no nationalisation, we are faced with a great crisis, and we must all do our best to try and get over that crisis. It cannot be said that the miners are guilty people unless you can provide them with all the luxuries for the carrying on of their trade. Get rid if you possibly can of all those difficulties which so retard coal production. If all these things were provided, and if the miners could not then produce what they ought to then the whole blame would be theirs.
Lord Gainford made a suggestion—I am not quite sure that I disagree with it—that apart altogether from the question of nationalisation, the employers and the miners should meet together and see how they can deal with the supplies, some of which are retarded by Government Departments—timber, horses, tubs, trucks, trams, rails, the necessity for cuttings, the necessity for repairs, the necessity for exploration, the necessity for research and many other things which might be mentioned. Unless those things can be dealt with you will always find friction arising between miners and other people as to whether miners are responsible for the steady decrease in the production of coal, or whether it is due to the lack of nationalisation or the lack of some other people looking after the coal industry. A torrent of abuse has gone

677
forth against the possibility of this trade being under bureaucrats. Nationalisation under bureaucrats seems to be taken for granted, as if that was what nationalisation was. I am an old Civil Servant myself, Mr. Justice Sankey was not. But as an old Civil Servant I emphatically say that, if nationalisation means putting the coal industry under the ordinary Civil Service, the ordinary Civil Service are not fitted for it, and I should oppose it myself root and branch. But before we discuss nationalisation, personally I should like to know exactly what nationalisation means.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, we have had a very interesting, to me personally a very instructive, but a somewhat discursive discussion. On the whole, a great deal of time has been spent in reiterating, charges against the Government, and against, I might say, the whole prevailing trend of legislation and administration with which we are now by this time very familiar in this House—lamentations over bureaucratic control, the lack of economy in Government administration, and even over the inflation of the currency. I am not going to attempt—in fact, I could not possibly attempt—to cover the whole ground that has been covered in this debate. I shall try to confine myself in the first place to answering one or two direct questions which have been addressed to me, and, in the second place, to stating in a general way how I regard—and I think I may say the Government regards—the present position.
With regard to the Question addressed to me by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strachie, I am sorry that I have not had time to consult my colleague the President, of the Board of Trade on the point, and therefore he must take my answer as being given with some reserve. It is merely my own interpretation of the situation, and not necessarily authoritative. But I should think it was quite clear that any undertaking that has been given to secure a certain rate of profit to the coal-owners must be absolutely unaffected by the postponement—if there is a postponement—of the raising of the price of coal recently announced.
Then the noble Lord says, Who is to bear the cost of such postponement? It seems to me evident that, inasmuch as
678
the rise of price has been necessitated in order to save tire State from loss which it would incur if the present prices were maintained, the cost of any postponement of that rise in price must fall on the State. The only reason for postponement—and it is not by any means certain that there will be a postponement—is that the Government might hope by postponement to achieve national ends of such importance as would justify it for a short time in throwing that loss upon the taxpayer which it feels that it would not be justified in permanently throwing upon them, for which reason the rise in price has been adopted. I am not quite sure if I make myself clear to the noble Lord, but it does seem to me that that must be the answer to his Question, although, as I have said, I have not had the opportunity of consulting my colleague who would be able to speak with more absolute authority on the point.
There have been a good many criticisms, especially from the noble Duke who spoke second in this debate, about the composition and the conduct of the Coal Commission. As regards the conduct of the Commission, I must say I rather regretted some of the criticisms, of the noble Duke upon the action of the learned Judge who was President of the Commission. But I do not think I am specially called upon to justify the conduct of the Commission. It is rather different with regard to the composition of the Commission. For that the Government is responsible. I must say, though I listened with attention to the complaints which were made about the composition of the Commission, I was not convinced that there was any just cause for criticising it. It is not denied that the Commission consisted of the representatives of two conflicting interests and of two, different points of view. There were representatives of the miners, and an equal number of the representatives of the coal-owners. There were gentlemen who were naturally regarded as the advocates, the defenders, of an existing system of production, and there was an equal number of people who were known to be, for good or bad reasons, advocates of a change. There was a perfectly equal balance of opinion, as it seems to me, in the Commission.
It may be argued that this is not the right way to constitute a Commission, that you ought not to bring together on one Commission the conflicting interests, even if they are both fairly represented, and

679
hope for a good result. But as a matter of fact, if I had time, I could show your Lordships that in the long course of our history there have been innumerable Commissions which have been constituted on that principle. In this instance, the conflicting interests and opposing views being fairly represented and an impartial Judge of very great eminence being in the chair, I really cannot see that the composition of the Commission can be fairly criticised on the ground of bias or unfairness, or any disposition on the part of the Government to pre-judge the question which was submitted to it.
It is perfectly true, of course, to say that the hope we had when the Commission was constituted was that in bringing the opposing sides and the conflicting views together at a moment of great national emergency, under an impartial President, they might between them, under the pressure of this national necessity, work out some agreed solution of the difficulty. That hope has been disappointed. All we have really got are conflicting Reports, and any guidance which the Government may derive from the Commission must be derived mainly from the amount of light which has been thrown on the subject by its proceedings and discussions and evidence. But I am not prepared to admit that the great amount of light which has been thrown on the whole subject by the proceedings of the Commission—not only for the general public but even for public men who, presumably, were more familiar with the question—will not be of assistance in the very difficult problem which now confronts us.
Amid the numerous criticisms of the conduct and attitude of the Government to which we have listened to-day—which sometimes made me feel that it is fortunate for the Government that its continued existence does not depend entirely or mainly upon this House—I noticed that there was one point upon which we have not been criticised, and I am glad of it, namely nothing has been said against the recent decision of the Government to raise the price of coal and not to allow the burden of the increased cost of production to fall directly upon the taxpayer. Throughout the discussion to-day the tone of the speakers has been, I will not say one of unrelieved gloom, but on the whole rather a gloomy one. Personally I am not prepared to sit down and wail at it, although I
680
realise that the situation is a serious and an anxious one. Indeed, in some respects I think there are fresh elements of hope; and the very great shock which undoubtedly the public has sustained during the last week, by being made to realise the situation at which we have now arrived, may be the commencement of better things. We are brought right up against a situation which sooner or later we had to face, and the sooner it is faced the better.
I read very carefully the recent debate in the House of Commons, and I could not help being struck by the fact that it is now common ground—it is freely recognised by the miners themselves—that some means must be found to compensate for the great increase in the cost of production, caused mainly though not wholly by the rise in wages and the shortening of hours of which they have got the benefit; and that if some means are not found we are threatened with a national disaster which will inevitably involve the loss by the miners themselves of those many benefits which they have recently secured. That fact being clearly established, being impressed on the mind of the public and being fully recognised and admitted by the miners themselves, it takes us, I think, a great step further; and for my own part I am firmly convinced that necessity,"the mother of invention," will find a way out. More than that, I believe that nothing else but sheer necessity would ever have got this country to adopt the improvements and economies in the production, in the distribution, and in the use of coal suggested, advocated, preached by expert authorities over and over again for years and years, which we have been as a nation—owing, no doubt, to our enormous wealth in coal and to the fact that we never realised that there might be any pinch in it—so slow to adopt and to develop.
It is clear that if there is to be compensation for the cost of higher wages and shorter hours—personally I believe that we deceive ourselves if we think there is any possibility of going back upon them—it must be achieved in these ways: by greater energy and skill on the part of the workers, by better appliances, better methods, better organisation in the production and distribution of coal, and by a much more scientific use of the coal itself. This is the only real road to salvation. The real point of practical interest, as it seems to me in all these discussions, is to find the system of

681
working by which we are likely to get the greatest benefit from both these sources of compensation—the moral and. the material. The greater energy of the workman, the greater skill in organisation, the greater application of science and invention in the adaptation and the use of coal, and in those scores of pregnant suggestions for the conservation of our fuel of which the Report of the Coal Conservation Committee—too little studied hitherto, I think, by most of those who have dealt with this subject—is a perfect store-house.
May I now say a few words on both these points—the question of how we can get more energy put into the work by the miners, and how we can get a greater application of skill, science, and organisation in the management of the production and distribution and use of coal? As I believe, there is room for improvement in both these respects to an extent which will not only compensate for the increase of Wages and the other benefits which the miners have secured for themselves, but which will make this a prosperous industry and a source of strength to the nation once more, instead of being, as it threatened at one time to become, a burden to it.
So far as the workers are concerned, plainly it is essential that they should be put upon their mettle. On the one hand, I think we must admit that they will not work their hardest if they are in a permanent state of discontent, with their position a sort of latent rebellion, sometimes open rebellion, against the system under which they work. On the other hand, they themselves must realise that if they succeed in bringing about a radical change, or even a substantial modification of that system, it is "up to them" to make any substituted system a success. And this is not a matter in which we can afford to take any chances. It is not enough for us to have the assurances, even the perfectly genuine and loyal assurances, of the workmen's leaders that, if certain changes are effected in the conduct of the industry, the men will respond to them by increased activity and make good, and more than make good, any fresh benefits which are conferred upon them. The community really is entitled to look before it leaps, and to have some better guarantee than mere assurances, some more conclusive argument than has yet been given—though I do not say it may not be given—that, if a
682
radical change is to be adopted, it really will be to the desired result.
The same applies to the material sources of compensation to which I have referred—to such things as labour-saving machinery, improvements in methods of working, unification of mines with all the saving which undoubtedly could be effected, conservation of fuel, all the possible means of saving energy which are open to us and which have been pointed out to us by experts. I may say in this connection that it is not the mass of black mineral which matters to us; it is the warmth or the energy which we get out of it; and it is just as important, and more important—and it will, I believe, play in the future a greater part in the economic development of this industry—that we should make up for a possible reduction in the amount of coal by the greater energy that is got out of it. That is of great importance in another way, because if we cam get 100 tons or 150 tons of coal to give as much energy as 200 tons have given, it means not only a saving in the cost of production but also the preservation of a wasting national asset.
Turning back from that side point, I should like to say that, as it seems to me, the acid test of the soundness or unsoundness of any system is whether it promotes or retards the adoption of such means of compensation for the greater cost of the production of coal. What is the system that is most calculated to give us both the greatest, the most whole-hearted, effort on the part of the workers and at the same time the greatest number of improvements in the actual working of the mines and in the use of the coal? The debate to-day has consisted very largely of an attack upon what is known as the system of nationalisation. I do not know that I have been exactly pressed by many speakers, but certainly various speakers have suggested that the Government is committed to nationalisation, or half committed to it, and one speaker at any rate has implored us to make a declaration against it. I am not myself very fond of discussing somewhat vague and general phrases like "nationalisation," which may mean such very different things. For instance, we have several proposals before us and at least two totally different proposals in the Report of the Commission, both of which are described as nationalisation but which are, in many essential particulars, utterly unlike one another.

683
Then the noble Duke adjured the Government not to have an open mind. He desired that we should substitute conviction and principle for the open mind. For my part, I am afraid I must confess to having an open mind, but I must repudiate the suggestion that I am necessarily unprincipled in consequence. The principle I should like to follow in this matter is to give the most careful consideration to all suggestions that have been made and to all the evidence that has been provided before coming to a conclusion on a matter of this momentous importance, and then to stick to the conclusion to which I had honestly arrived. I think the time has not yet come when having an open mind is a fair subject of reproach to the Government.
For myself—not speaking as the mouthpiece of a Government which has yet to come to important decisions on this subject, and which could not possibly be expected to have come to them at an earlier stage—I may say that, whatever may be our own feelings and inclinations about it, I hardly think it possible to doubt that there is an irresistible trend of opinion, not only in this country but in all countries of advanced civilisation, which will result in a greater measure of public ownership and public control in regard to so fundamentally a national asset as coal than has existed in the past. Personally I cannot doubt it. At the same time I want distinctly to say (it has been said by several speakers already, but it is absolutely necessary to say it again because there is a world of misunderstanding when speaking of public control) that I most emphatically repudiate the suggestion that I think a great industrial or commercial concern can be run from Whitehall on the ordinary principles of the Civil Service. I have the greatest regard for the Civil Service, to which I have myself belonged, within its proper sphere of administration, but I fully agree with the noble Viscount opposite that the training and experience and. the whole habit of mind of the Civil Servant is not well fitted for the conduct of industrial and commercial concerns.
Why it should always be assumed that there can be no public ownership of any great business without its being run on the same lines as the India Office or the Colonial Office, I cannot for the life of me imagine. We have heard nothing to-day from the start to finish of this debate except the deplorable consequences of public control.
684
Public control, apparently, is regarded as to a great extent responsible for the present difficulties in the coal mines. All I can say is that without the public control of coal, shipping, or food, practically of everything during the later years of the war, I believe we should have come to complete disaster. I wonder why it is that of all the warring countries except America, which has never been submitted to anything like the same strain, this is the one country which has come through the war with vastly the least suffering, apart from the injuries inflicted by the war itself, and with the least general discontent. It is, I believe, due entirely to the fact that the Government of this country did take held of everything and did control many things which were left by the Governments of other countries, disastrously, to be determined by the struggle of private competition. Take the case of food. The inequalities in the distribution of food, and the discontent arising, have been far greater in Allied countries than in this. So far from welcoming a hasty de-controlling of everything I am not quite certain that our de-control has not been too rapid.
More than that, it is not fair to condemn any system by the faults and defects which it has been found to produce when suddenly extemporised to meet a great emergency. Public control must be judged by those cases in which it has been long established and has had some time to be regularly and properly developed. Mistakes, innumerable mistakes, no doubt were made in the course of public control during the war, but despite of that lam convinced we have done vastly better under it than we should have done if, which is almost inconceivable, things had been left to take their course according to the ordinary rules of private competition.
When I am told that public control is responsible for the present difficulties with which we are confronted in regard to the coal mines I am really inclined to ask, "Where are our memories?" Before the war the cost of production was increasing, wages were increasing, the output per head in the mines was falling off. Two or three years before the war we had the biggest strike almost in the history of this country, which very nearly brought our industries to a stand-still; and it is surely a matter which we have not forgotten that, in spite of the huge concessions which were made to the miners, there was no satisfaction

685
and no rest in the industry, and that at the time when war broke out we were working up to another crisis. The war and control have delayed a crisis; they have not created it.
I admit frankly that in my opinion we leave to face not necessarily nationalisation—I do not know what the word means exactly—but we have to face great changes in the system under which coal in this country is produced and distributed. The facet is that the whole face of industry is undergoing transformation, not only in this country but in every country in the world. The old industrial order is passing away, and we have all of us to lend a hand to the peaceful establishment of the new. I do not believe in these broad contrasts of private enterprise and public enterprise, saying one is better than the other. I believe that in the future, as in the past, there will be room alike for the development of private enterprise and for an increasing amount of public control. After all, there was a time when armies and navies were conducted largely on the private enterprise system. Nobody contemplates such a thing now. I do not believe that in the future either one or the other principle, either the socialistic principle, or the individualistic principle, is going altogether to prevail.
I believe that the trend of modern thought, modern social development, and political development is all in favour of the great socialisation of certain fundamental and basic industries. Coal may be one of them, but it does not follow that even if that tendency is right it is a tendency which can be achieved in a day. On the' whole one would like to proceed, in a matter of this kind, by way of experiment. I have never been able to understand why we should not try, in the matter of the production of coal, the experiment of the public working or working under public control of a certain area of mines, and see what was the result. It might result, as the majority of noble Lords, I think, believe, in failure. If so, the man with the open mind would admit that they have proved their case, and would not wish to go further on those lines; but it might also lead to favourable results, in which case I should expect that even some of your Lordships would be converted to a view which is very unpopular in the House at present At any rate what I feel is this, that
686
it is no good being misled by catchwords Do not let us go into two hostile camps about it, each fighting for a phrase, but let all men of good will do their best, realising the intense gravity of the situation and the grave national issues at stake, to bring about a. better social relationship between all those who are interested in the conduct of this industry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lords, I hope the noble Viscount opposite will not think that when we make observations upon the policy of the Government we do not sympathise with their difficulties. We sympathise with the difficulties in which they stand at this moment, just as we sympathised with the difficulties with which they were confronted during the war. I go further. I admire the optimism with which the noble Viscount refuses to be cast down by a situation which must be admitted to be one of considerable gravity; but when my noble friend prides himself on having an open mind, I would press upon him what I know he knows perfectly well—that the attitude of an open mind is a very hazardous one for a Government to adopt, except for a very brief period.
It is not as if the history of the Government was one of great success in dealing with industrial difficulties. I am not, of course, saying that that is the fault of my noble friend. He is a man of great resolution and courage, and I have very little doubt that if he had, as well as his other onerous duties, the control of the industrial policy of the Government it would have been far more successful than it has been; but, broadly speaking, the industrial policy of the Government during the war was a policy of weakness. It was a policy of resistance up to a certain point and then of surrender. It was a policy which was demoralising to the workers and discouraging to the employers. I do not speak from the point of view of one who does not sympathise with the workers. I am sure your Lordships will acquit me of want of sympathy with the workers. On the contrary, I have profound sympathy with them and have said so on many occasions, but I am sure there is no good concealing the truth from the workers. We must let them know what the facts are.
VISCOUNT MILNER: We have told them now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, but they should have been told before. Whenever ally of these industrial crises arose they should have been warned to what conclusion their attitude would necessarily lead. That would have been the policy of a strong Government. But though I shall say a word before I sit down about the attitude which I believe ought to be adopted towards the workers, I would ask my noble friend when he speaks on these matters not to minimise the gravity of the situation in which we stand. I thought he was perfectly right when he said that the great objects which ought to be pursued were an increase in the zealous working of the men and an increase in the material equipment of the industry. That is perfectly true. But let the workers realise to what extent they have got to be more zealous. I am not sure that I rightly heard the figures which were given in comparing the output of an American workman with the output of the British workman. It was, I think, 660 tons per year as against 212. Your Lordships will not think I exaggerate when I say that such a contrast is almost appalling.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I cannot explain it, but there evidently are some very special reasons, no doubt such as the easiness with which the mines are worked and the age of the working, because, for instance, the German figure up to the time of the war was no better than the English, although the contrast between the English and American figures was at that time very great.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very glad to draw that observation from the noble Viscount, because I should be very sorry if there should have been nothing said to mitigate the serious effect which those figures will have in the public mind. At the same time, when all allowance is made there is an enormous difference between the output of the American working man and the output of the British working man. When the noble Viscount says we want more zeal in the work of our miners, we mean that we want to bring their energy up to the same level as that displayed by the American working men, and that will want, in a slang phrase, "a good deal of doing." I hope,' therefore, that the noble Viscount will not in his cheery optimism—I should hardly call it that to-night, but much greater optimism than
688
other speakers—minimise the gravity of the situation.
I do not say much on the Commission. The Commission has had a bad time of it to-day. The noble Duke, in the most admirable speech which he delivered in the early part of the afternoon, gave it some shrewd blows, but I think the worst thing which was said about the Commission was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, because it is clear from his account of the Commission that it was appointed in a panic, deliberated in a panic, and reported in a panic.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: A great emergency.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When the noble Viscount sketched the gravity of the situation and the necessity for an immediate Report lest some terrible things should happen, I do not think, in regard to that, that I am using inaccurate language when I say it was in a panic. We may dismiss a Report which is made in a panic as not really worth the paper on which it is written. Moreover the noble Viscount opposite, the representative of the Government, said that they had appointed the Commission in certain hopes, and that those holies had not been verified, and that the Commission was to that extent even in his own view a failure.
I should like to say, in two or three sentences, something regarding the attitude which it is proper that we should adopt. It is an attitude of great sympathy with the workers. Those of us who have spoken from this side of the House have said over and over again that we believe that the status of the workers ought to be raised, and that they ought to become partners in the industry and not merely wage-earners. That I profoundly believe to be true. I quite agree in that respect with what the noble and learned Viscount said. He wished that some of the spirit which existed at the Front between the troops and their officers could be imported into the relations of industry. I believe that would be a most admirable result if it could be brought about.
But though I believe that the status of the workers ought to be raised, and that they ought to be treated partners and friends in the industry, it does not mean that we believe a great system of bureaucratic management of the mines ought to be

689
established in this country. That appears to me to be a totally different thing. It would not make for efficiency, and the lack of efficiency would react upon the workers themselves. How could they expect that their interests would be subserved by a management which did not make for the prosperity of the industry. What is more important, it would not make for the interests of the consumers. There are the great consumers—the great industries of this country. I will not dwell upon them, because they have formed the subject of a great number of speeches this afternoon. There are also the poor consumers. There are the working classes who are not miners, and who indeed are a great deal poorer than the miners, and unless the industry is managed with efficiency the price of coal to these poor men will be raised to such an extent as to inflict the greatest hardship upon them. They are a very large body of society in our country, and they are looking to Parliament to protect them. I take it that there is not a member of your Lordships' House who will not feel it an obligation and a duty of honour to protect as far as we can these defenceless persons who are liable, if this great controversy turns out unfavourable to their interests, to suffer immense hardships. I feel that very strongly.
Lastly there is in this nationalisation, if it means a great bureaucratic control, an opportunity for any amount of political corruption—for undue influence exercised by persons in order to improve their own position through political agency, through their Members of Parliament operating upon the Executive Government who will have the control of the industry, and for demoralising concessions by Members of Parliament themselves; for everything, in fact, which we have been brought up to believe is bad in the policy of the State. When the noble Viscount opposite speaks with some satisfaction, or at any rate with some resignation, on the prospect of the extension of State ownership, I wonder whether he reflects upon the political consequences which inevitably follow, and which would be demoralising to the national character. We believe that industry is a great service to the State, and that the workers and the employers are engaged in the performance of a great public duty. We shrink from seeing them degraded by those temptations and opportunities for corruption which State ownership inevitably carries with it. Those are the reasons
690
why we shrink from the policy adumbrated in the Sankey Report. We would beg, as our last, word, that the Government should totally abandon the attitude of the open mind, and come to a decision—we hope a right decision—and announce to the country the policy they intend to pursue, and then pursue it with vigour and strength.
EARL BRASSEY: My Lords, in with drawing the Motion, I should like to say that the purpose of putting it on the Paper has been amply served by the interesting discussion it has produced. I should like personally to thank the noble Viscount (Lord Milner) opposite for having given us such an interesting speech.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE TERMS OF PEACE.
VISCOUNT BRYCE VISCOUNT BRYCE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the statement, made in the official summary of the terms of peace offered to Austria, that those terms include a provision that the frontier of Italy should be advanced to the watershed of the main chain of the Rhætian Alps at the Brenner Pass, with the result of transferring to the Kingdom of Italy more than 200,000 German-speaking Tyrolese inhabiting a region which has never been under any Italian Sovereign; and to ask His Majesty's Government in what form it is proposed to present to Parliament an account of the negotiations which have led to the settlement of the terms of peace proposed to Germany and Austria and to the conclusion of whatever peace may be ultimately signed with the latter State.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at this late hour I shall endeavour to be as short as possible in addressing the Question I have to put to His Majesty's Government, but it has been so long upon the Paper and has been so often postponed at the request of the Government that I think it is high time it was disposed of.
The only question that I put to His Majesty's Government is this. I ask, In what form it is proposed to present to Parliament an account of the negotiations which have led to the settlement of the

691
terms of peace proposed to Germany and Austria and to the conclusion of whatever peace may be ultimately signed with the latter State. I understand that the Government do not desire to be asked with regard to any matter that is now pending in the negotiations at Paris, and therefore, although I have to call attention to the statement made regarding the terms of peace that have been offered to Austria, I do not ask the Government to make an answer upon that subject, because I understand that they do not wish to make answers on any subject relating to pending negotiations. I therefore confine my question entirely to the latter part of the Notice.
The negotiations that have gone on at Paris have been secret to a greater extent, I think, than on almost any occasion of recent years. All we know about them is vague rumours. The country, although it was promised that this should be a popular pace carrying the will of the pope with it, has hardly any authentic information, but was presented with a fait accompli when it was too late to make any change. On this occasion questions far more numerous and important have been decided than have ever been dealt with at any previous Europan Conference, and I want to know in what form we are to be told of the progress of those negotiations and of the reasons which influenced the negotiators in coming to the conclusions to which they have come.
The Treaty with Germany is only a part of a complete re-settlement, not only of Europe but of pa of Asia, and, considering the immense importance of these issues, and considering how little we have been told hitherto regarding them, I think we are entitled now to have the fullest account the Government can give us of what has taken place and of the reasons and arguments which have influenced the negotiators in coming to the decisions which they have reached. After the Treaty of Berlin there was a very full record presented of the deliberations of the Congress there. It occupied, in the Blue-book presented in 1878, 280 pages, and I desire to know from His Majesty's Government in what form we are now to have an account of what has passed at Paris in the negotiation of these several Treaties.
I propose to illustrate that by what I have to say about the case of Tyrol. It would be impossible for me to explain the matter fully to your Lordships without
692
delivering a sort of geographical lecture, and, in fact, without the aid of a map; therefore I shall give you as few names as possible and confine myself to stating the broad outlines of the case. Tyrol, as we know it on the map, consists of two totally different parts. There is the ancient county of Tyrol, which is inhabited by a German-speaking population and which has ever since the fourteenth century formed part of the dominions of the House of Hapsburg. That is what I may call North and Central Tyrol. The other part is the Bishopric of Trent (South Tyrol) which is inhabited by a population speaking Italian, which is not Teutonic, and whose history and traditions are entirely different from those of North and Central Tyrol. And what is now proposed, according to the statement which reaches us to-day, is to hand over to Italy Central Tyrol, by which I mean the southern part of the Germanic part of Tyrol—the part which lies south of the great ma in chain of the Rhaetic and Norie Alps. Here is a large population speaking German, of Germanic traditions, which has no connection whatever with Italy, and it is proposed in virtue of the Treaty which is said to be in course of negotiation now to deliver that over to the alien government of the Italian kingdom. I desire to know what possible grounds can be influencing his Majesty's Government in giving their consent to such a proposition.
It is said that this is to be done in order to give Italy a new strategic frontier. Let me ask your Lordships for a moment to consider what passed before Italy entered the war. Italy negotiated with Austria., Austria endeavouring to induce her not to join the war against her. Italy demanded a frontier from Austria which she alleged she ought to have on strategic grounds, to be protected against what was then the great Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. That frontier was to be fixed at a point called Klausen in the valley of the Eisack River, where there is a narrow gorge through which the road and railway pass and which does constitute, according to all military authority, a very strong frontier, and probably the strongest frontier along the whole course of the road and railway from the Brenner Pass in the north to Verona at the outlet of the Adige into the Plain of Lombardy in the south.
But what Italy asks now is very much larger than what she then desired to have.

693
Now Austria, from being the great Austro-Hungarian Empire, the great military Empire of 1914, has become a petty State of only about 7,000,000 people, and yet Italy demands as a strategic frontier against this petty Austria a far more extensive territory, and a frontier far more extended to the north than she asked before the war when she was negotiating with Austria. That will appear at once to your Lordships to be a most unreasonable demand, which the strategic considerations alleged cannot justify—that a State of 36,000,000 inhabitants, like Italy, should desire this immensely extended frontier against a State which will only have 7,000,000.
In reality, moreover, it is a worse frontier, because the line of the Brenner is not nearly so strong a defensive position as the gorge of the river at Klansen, and because the frontier to the north-west, opening from the valley of the Vintschgau, is a comparatively, open country, far less strong than the frontier which Italy would have if she had obtained what she formerly asked, or were to fix the frontier at a point which is the true demarcation line, the line of demarcation between the Italian speaking and the German-speaking area of Central Tyrol. That is at a, place called Salurn to the south of Botzen
If this proposal were to be justified, surely it would be one of those cases in which the opinion of tie people whom it is proposed to transfer should be taken—in other words, there should be a popular vote, or what is called a plébiscite. If that was taken in the territory which it is proposed to transfer no one can have the slightest doubt as to what the result of the popular vote would be. But I understand that the Italians—the Italian Government, for I do not attribute this to the Italian people—in the endeavour to justify the refusal of a plébiscite, say that if a plébiscite was taken over the whole of Tyrol, including the Trentino, it would give a majority in favour of annexation of this part to Italy. But we do not want to know what the people of the Trentino think, but what the people proposed to be annexed to them think, and if the plébisite is to have any value at all it ought to be taken only in the district which is affected.
Those are, broadly speaking, the facts of the case, and I think your Lordships will agree that any such annexation as is now proposed of this population of more than 200,000 hardy mountaineers speaking German—a people of Teutonic race,
694
Teutonic in their speech and in all their traditions—to the rule of an alien Government would be as gross an offence as could be imagined against that principle of nationality to which the Allied Powers have declared their adhesion. Here is an attempt to transfer these people, as if they were so many sheep, although everybody knows perfectly well that they want to remain where they are, and not to be transferred to the Government of another nation.
I should like to remind your Lordships that this is not the first time an attempt has been made to take the people of Tyrol and transfer them from one Government to another. In the year 1809 Bonaparte at the height of his power obtained from the Austrian Government, which he had defeated, the cession of a considerable part of Tyrol, which he proposed to hand over to Bavaria. The Tyrolese rose, led by Andreas Hofer and a number of other valiant leaders, and they offered a strong resistance, to Napoleon and the French troops, and in that they had the cordial support of the people of England. Those who have read the history of that time will remember how strongly our sympathy went out to the Tyrolese of that day when they resisted that attempt to transfer them to another Government.
I have reason to believe that that spirit is not extinct among the Tyrolese, and that if this transfer were to be carried through it would be resisted. It would be resisted, I hope, at first by peaceful methods, and I have no doubt that if the Treaty were to sanction it the first thing the Tyrolese would do would be to go to the League of Nations and endeavour to have this injustice rectified. But if they failed no one could tell what would happen afterwards, because they are a very high-spirited people, and they would not tamely acquiesce in the injustice which it is proposed to do to them.
I may add that it is doing a very had service to the League of-Nations to start it with injustices of this kind to be redressed. The League of Nations is supposed to be based upon the principle of the recognition of the rights of nationalities and the right of self-determination, and to found that League by a Treaty which at the same time sanctioned an annexation violating its principles, destroying the whole moral foundation on which the League of Nations rests, will be a most unfortunate beginning for that project from which we have

695
been venturing to hope a great deal for the future peace and welfare of Europe. I desire to ask the Government the Question which stands in my name on the Paper.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Curzon is unable to be present this evening, and I much regret therefore that the noble Viscount will not receive an adequate answer to a question of great importance, and one of which, of course, he has great knowledge.
The facts with regard to this matter are that when the Austrian Peace Delegation arrived in Paris they were informed that it was proposed to cede a large portion of the Southern Tyrol to Italy. This annexation will, as the noble Viscount stated, include within Italian territory some 200,000 persons of the Teutonic race The Allied Peace Delegates considered that, in the interests of the populations themselves and for the purpose of security and permanence, it would be an unwise act arbitrarily to disturb the marked geographical and economic unity of the districts of the Trentino and the Southern Tyrol. If this area be taken as a whole, the Italian majority for the district, it is estimated, will stand approximately in the proportion of two to one.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Does the noble Lord mean by "the district" the whole country, including the Trentino, northward from the frontiers of Italy?
LORD NEWTON: The district proposed to be annexed. The frontier of the Brenner was accorded to Italy by the Treaty of London of April 25, 1915; and after hearing the representatives of the Italian Delegation, the President of the United States—the Government of the United States not being party to the Treaty—has agreed that the claim of the Italians to the natural frontier of the Italian Peninsula is justified. As regards the question of holding a plebiscite in this area, the Peace Delegates consider that if a vote of the area as a whole were taken there would be an overwhelming Italian majority recorded, and it is considered, therefore, to be unnecessary to resort to this procedure in order to arrive at a decision. I regret that this is all I am able to state on the present occasion. With regard to the latter portion of the noble Viscount's Question, I have been requested to ask him to postpone it until the Prime Minister has returned to London.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Do I understand the noble Lord to mean that the suggestion is that the plebiscite to be taken should include the whole of the Italian population of the Trentino as well as of the German population of Central Tyrol?
LORD NEWTON: I understand that the plebiscite is to apply to the territory which is proposed to be ceded.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: No. As I understand what was read by the noble Lord, the plebiscite is to be taken nut only in the territory proposed to be ceded but in all the Italian country which lie to the south of it.
LORD NEWTON: What I said was that it was not considered that a.plebiscite was necessary in view of the certainty that there would be a large Italian majority.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: That is to say, if you were to add to the 200,000 people who are proposed to be ceded the far larger number of Italian-speaking people who are not affected in any way, you would get a majority?
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid I cannot explain myself any better than I have hitherto done. I understand that a plebiscite is not going to be taken because they feel so absolutely certain of the result and consider that it is not necessary.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Does the noble Lord mean by that, absolutely certain of the result if they include among the people whose wishes are to be ascertained a very large number of people who are outside the district altogether?
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid that I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the subject to give any further answer to the noble Viscount.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
EARL GREY EARL GREY had the following Notice upon the Paper—
To move for a Return showing, for the councils of the administrative counties of Chester, Devon, Essex, Middlesex, Monmouth, Norfolk, Northumberland, Nottingham, Southampton, Stafford, Carnarvon, and Glamorgan, and for the councils of the county

697
boroughs, other municipal boroughs, urban districts, and rural districts situate, or deemed to be situate, within those counties—

1. The number of casual vacancies in the membership of the councils filled during the year 1913;

2. The number of those vacancies filled by contested election; and

3. The number of elective members of the councils at the end of the year 1913.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to make this Motion on behalf of Lord Grey.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I beg to make this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I beg to say that this Return will be granted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
[From Minutes of July 15.]
BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to this Bill.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bill to be read 2a on Thursday next (The Earl of Jersey).

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
The Evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee, and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order. (No. 97.)
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (RATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz),

D. Wellington (Chairman),

E. Kimberley,

E. Brassey,

L. Rotherham,

L. Cochrane of Cults;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 23rd instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired as also Counsel for the Bills.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read. 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WOMEN'S EMANCIPATION BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday the 24th instant (The Earl of Kimberley).

MINISTRY OF HEALTH ACT, 1919.
Draft Orders—

1. Ministry of Health (Consultative Councils) Order, 1919;

2. Ministry of Health (Welsh Consultative Council) Order, 1919:

To be printed. (No. 114.)
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.