Sitting of 1 May 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable, absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PERSIA.

    ARCHÆ OLOGICAL RESEARCH TREATIES.
    Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by treaties between the Governments of France and Persia signed on or about 12th May, 1895, and 11th August, 1900, an exclusive and perpetual right of excavating for antiquities throughout the whole of the Persian kingdom was granted to the French Government; whether these treaties were made with cognisance of the British Government; whether any protest was entered against them; and whether, having regard to the discrimination thus set up between French and British archæologists and to the damage thereby likely to be done to the interests of the British Museum, the opportunity of current international negotiations will be taken to bring about a revision of those
    294
    treaties in favour of the archæologists of Great Britain and the United States of America?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
    The French Government first obtained permission from the Shah in 1884 to carry on excavations on the ancient site of Shush or Susa in Southern Persia and the work done by eminent French archæologists there during the past thirty-five years has materially contributed to the progress of historical research.
    The concession granted to the French Government on 11th August, 1900, conferred the widest possible rights to the French in perpetuity, but the Persian Government recently uphold the view that these rights referred to "Crown Domains" alone and a revision of the terms of the concession are believed to have been in contemplation. No protest was entered by His Majesty's Government.
    The French Government have from time to time waived their claims to exclusive rights in virtue of their concession and have permitted British Archæologists to undertake certain excavations in Persia, and their friendly attitude in this respect has prevented the monopoly from becoming a grievance from our point of view.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities exist, if any, to enable British subjects to communicate by letter or otherwise with their relations at present located in Russia?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In so far as circumstances permit, British subjects are able to communicate by letter or telegraph in the ordinary way with persons in the Archangel district, the old Russian province of Caucasia and with such of the Black Sea ports as are not in the occupation of the Russian Bolshevik forces.
    As regards communication with British subjects detained in Bolshevik Russia by the Russian Soviet Government, arrangements have been made for the dispatch of letters and parcels to them through His Majesty's Consul-General at Helsingfors.
    Mr. BILLING: Are the Government satisfied that there is no reason for alarm as to the safety of the British subjects there?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must ask my hon. Friend to put that question down.

    UKRAINE.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is now the seat of the anti-Bolshevik Government of the Ukraine; whether Odessa and Kieff are still in the hands of troops of the Bolshevik Government of Moscow; and whether any military ormaterial assistance is being given by any of the Allies to the Ukrainians who are resisting the attempted conquest of Ukraine by the Bolshevik Government of Moscow?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We have no in formation as to the present whereabouts of the anti-Bolshevik Government of the Ukraine.
    The reply to the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative, and to the third part that the Allied forces, who are under the command of the French military authorities in South Russia, have been giving such assistance as was possible to those Russian units who were prepared to co-operate with them in resisting the forces of the Russian Soviet Government. These units include a certain proportion of troops drawn from Ukrainian sources.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Have all the Allied forces been withdrawn from the Ukraine, or am I to understand that French troops are still there?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must ask for notice of that.
    Mr. RENDALL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the news to-day that the Bolshevists have left Petrograd is true?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have been unable to get affirmative news as yet.

  TRANSFERS OF ENEMY SHIPPING.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the announcement made in November last that no transfer of enemy ships to neutrals would be recognised, he will state whether it is intended to agree to the sale to a Dutch company
  296
  of the Hamburg-Amerika Company's steamships "Johann Heinrich Burchard" and the "William O'Swald"; and, if so, will he state what are the special circumstances which are considered to justify this course, having regard to the injury done to British mercantile shipping as the result of enemy action, contrary to international law and usage?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government, as at present advised, are not prepared to recognise the transfer of enemy ships to neutrals, and the Governments concerned have been so informed.
  Sir F. HALL: May we take it that permissions for transfer will not be granted?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: That seems to follow from my answer.
  Mr. BILLING: What about the purchase of enemy vessels by British subjects?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is not covered by the question on the Paper.

  EGYPT.

    CABINET (RESIGNATION).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state why the Egyptian. Cabinet has again resigned; whether the greater portion of the Egyptian Government officials are still on strike; and whether steps are being taken to bring those responsible for attacks upon persons and upon the property of the Egyptian State railways and other offenders to a trial and punishment?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Egyptian Cabinet resigned because they had lost authority. It is understood that, with the exception of the Ministry of Education, where a large number of officials are still absent, practically all Government officials have returned to work. The answer to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative.

    LORD MILNER'S MISSION.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Government Commission to inquire into the government of Egypt has been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Milner; and, if so, whether he will say what is the composition of the Commission and what are its terms of reference?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of the steps that may require to be taken with regard to the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is still under consideration, and I regret that I am unable to give him any information at present.

  MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether King Nicholas of Montenegro had been dethroned by act of the Montenegrin popular assembly; whether Montenegro is now incorporated in the dominions of the King of Serbia; and whether such incorporation has been recognised by the British Government?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: An assembly which met at Podgoritza last November announced the deposition of King Nicholas and the union of Montenegro with Serbia. The decisions of that assembly have not been recognised by His Majesty's Government.

  OVERSEAS TROOPS (RETURN).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will say what progress has been made in the provision of shipping for men serving abroad who, though entitled to release and return to their homes, businesses, and families, are detained often in distant countries owing to the want of transport, whereby their own interests and those of the country are seriously prejudiced?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson):I have been asked to reply. The decision as to what men are to be released from the Army and returned to their homes is a matter for the War Office, but so far as facilities for Overseas Transport are concerned, I do not anticipate any difficulty in making full provision for meeting the requirements of that Department.
  Sir F. HALL: May we anticipate the return of these soldiers from overseas forthwith?
  Colonel WILSON: That question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War, but as regards shipping facilities, I do not anticipate any difficulty in supplying shipping.
  Sir F. HALL: And if the War Department say that the soldiers cannot be repatriated in consequence of the want of tonnage, can we understand that the Shipping Controller can place tonnage at the disposal of the War Office?
  Colonel WILSON: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have already given.

  OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (OFFICES).
  Mr. REMERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the difficulty traders find in getting into touch with the right Department owing to the officials being housed in so many different offices; and whether he can make arrangements to get all Departments in a central building?
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I am constantly met with the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers and the need for the provision of a central building has been laid before the War Cabinet.

  MILITARY PATIENTS (HOUSING AT HARROGATE).
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. LUNN:
  12. To ask the Pensions Minister if he is aware that the West Riding War Pensions Committee have 150 men suffering from rheumatism undergoing treatment at the Royal Baths, Harrogate; that the men are billeted in houses in the town, and that there is discontent amongst them owing to the fact that they are not treated as in-patients of an institution; and, in view of the fact that the Ministry have neglected to provide an institution or hostel at Harrogate and the approach of the season, which will make it difficult to provide accommodation and training for this class of case, he will arrange that these men in the matter of allowances shall be treated as though in an institution?
  Mr. LUNN: Although this question has already been answered, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Ministry intends housing these men in the

  299
  event of the landladies in Harrogate wanting their rooms immediately, as is possible?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans):Negotiations are pending for the purchase of housing accommodation for these men.
  Mr. LUNN: Is it not the fact that, should the rooms be required before the end of the month, the 150 men now accommodated there will be turned out?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is because of that that negotiations are pending for the purchase of other premises.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
    Major PRESCOTTasked the Pensions Minister why the 20 per cent. increase agreed to be paid on alternative pensions as from the 6th November last has not yet been paid?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Payment of the bonus has been made in the case of the men and, with few exceptions, in the case of officers and officers' widows. In the case of the alternative pensions of the men's widows, there has been some delay owing to the large numbers involved, but local committees have been asked to notify special cases of hardship in order that payment may be immediately authorised. I may add that the period of the bonus on alternative pension runs from 1st January, 1919, not 6th November, 1918.
    Major PRESCOTT: In view of the complaints made by Members of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman try and speed up the machinery, so that these payments may be made with the least possible delay?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS:I am doing my best to speed up the machinery in all directions. The payment of the war bonus adds very largely to the work of the Department, but the best endeavours are being used to get the payments made as soon as possible.

    SPECIAL WAR GRATUITY.
    Lieutenant-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the cause of the delay
    300
    in paying the special war gratuity to the dependants of deceased soldiers and sailors, and when the claimants may expect payment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am afraid that the work involved is not quite appreciated. The payment of these gratuities involves the reopening of some 700,000 estates. The cases are being dealt with in their order according to the date of death. We are doing our best to overtake the work, but I am afraid that it will be some time before the majority of the cases have been dealt with.

  IRELAND.

    CARE OF CHILDREN.
    Mr. EDWARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, in view of the judgment of the King's Bench Division pronounced on the 10th April, on the application of Thomas Connors for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Inspector-General, the Irish Executive still claim the right to take children of tender years from their homes without giving notice to their parents and without informing their parents of the place where the children may be detained, and, if so, will he say on what authority these powers are exercised?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A.W. Samuels):It is presumed that this question relates to the same matters as those referred to in the questions asked by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland Division of Durham on the 27th March and by the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham South on 3rd April. The hon. Member is referred to the answers given to these two questions. The children were not arrested. Two boys named John Connors and Timothy Connors and another boy named Matthew Hogan were, on account of circumstances connected with the murder on 21st January last of Constables McDonnell and O'Connell at Soloheadbeg, county Tipperary, removed from the neighbourhood with a view for their personal safety. John Connors was absent from his home from the 12th to the 28th February. The other Connors and Hogan remained in Dublin for about two months.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that they

    301
    were not arrested? Were they not taken away by the police in a military wagon and kept in police custody all the time?
    Mr. SAMUELS: They were under police guardianship.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: This is not a matter the right hon. Gentleman can frivol with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I am perfectly in order.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order in asking questions, but not in arguing.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I think my question was quite in order. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this child was not in the custody of the police, seeing that the police took him away from the custody of his parents and brought him in a military wagon to Dublin and kept him there during these weeks?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I am not in a position to speak as to the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement of the circumstances of removal, but I can assure the hon. Member that in the judgment of the authorities the removal was essential, having regard to what was going on.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the Attorney-General read the observations passed on this case by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and the special censure of the police on the motion for a writ of habeas corpus?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I think the hon. Member has a question down on the matter, and I shall deal with it when I come to answer it.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: But you have asked me to postpone it.
    Mr. SAMUELS: That is so.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I am sorry, but the Attorney-General, as the head of the legal profession in Ireland, must be perfectly well aware of the censure by the Lord Chief Justice in the Court.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question should be put on the Paper.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It is on the Paper.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. Not in this question.

    COUNTY ROADS (DONEGAL).
    Mr. EDWARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if a number of road contractors entered into contracts
    302
    with the Donegal County Council on the 21st November, 1913, to keep various county roads in repair with a specified quantity of road metal for a term of five years, from 1st April, 1914, to 31st March, 1919; that, owing to the War, the increase in the cost of living and labour, and the upkeep of horses, their pre-war estimate was insufficient to pay for half the labour necessary for the contracts; that they applied to the county council for an increase of pay or a reduction in the annual amount of road metal which had to be used according to the contracts; that at several meetings during the years 1915, 1916, and 1917 the council recommended an increase of pay or reduction of 30 or 40 per cent. in road metal, but the Local Government Board refused to sanction either proposal; and will the Board now sanction a war bonus to these contractors who were compelled to carry out contracts at pre-war rates?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The facts are, generally, as stated in the first part of the question. The sanction of the Local Government Board was asked by the Donegal County Council to the payment of increased prices to road contractors in that county, owing to war conditions; but, the Board informed the Donegal authorities that they were not empowered to direct or approve the waiving of the terms of a contract, and that the council must act on their own responsibility in the matter. With regard to the proposed reduction in the quantity of the road materials, the Board were unable to approve of allowing the roads to become deteriorated by making a substantial reduction in the quantity of the material to be used in maintaining them. The Board suggested that fresh tenders should be invited before any increases in contract prices are considered.

    RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the serious inadequacy of the pay and allowances of resident magistrates in Ireland; whether their present scale of pay was fixed forty-five years ago, and, although most other public servants of the same status have since 1874 received substantial increases of pay, no addition has been made to the pay of resident magistrates; and whether he will introduce early legislation to remedy this state of things?
    Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary received on the 24th ultimo a deputation of resident magistrates in reference to their pay and allowances. The question is engaging the very careful consideration of the Chief Secretary, who is about to address a communication to the Treasury in the matter.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman press forward this matter as speedily as possible?
    Mr. DEVLIN: In the interests of public economy would he not abolish resident magistrates altogether?

    TIPPERARY BOY'S DETENTION.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the abduction by the police of a child of eleven years, Timothy Connors, from Greenane, county Tipperary, to Dublin; whether he is aware that on notice of issue by the High Court of a writ of habeas corpus the child was surreptitiously returned to his parents, and that an affidavit was then sworn by the Assistant Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that the child was not in his custody or charge; whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice severely censured the affidavit as lacking in candour and disrespectful to the Court; whether he can say how such conduct can be reconciled with the statement that the child was arrested in the interests of justice; what action has been taken by the Government in respect of the affidavit sworn by the Assistant Inspector-General; whether the Assistant Inspector-General is still in office; and whether the costs of the legal proceedings will be defrayed by the Assistant Inspector-General or by the taxpayers? Perhaps the Attorney-General can answer part of this question, at any rate.
    Mr. SAMUELS: I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend all the information I have. I have read myself the newspaper report, but I cannot recollect accurately the statement in that report on the motion for habeas corpus. I shall try to meet my hon. Friend and hope to give him the facts.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read this statement made by the Lord Chief Justice?
    Mr. SAMUELS:I said that I had read the newspaper report, but cannot accurately recollect it and I want to see it before I answer.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman read that statement—a very important statement on the administration of the law in Ireland—what has he done with regard to it?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better wait for a complete answer, when the information is obtained.

    SHOOTING CASE (DUNGARVAN).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the policeman who shot Michael Walsh at Ballinagoul, Dungarvan, has been placed under arrest; and, if not, will he state the reason?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The policeman who is charged in this case has been arrested and is at present in custody.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he was arrested?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot give the exact date.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Was he put under arrest after this question appeared on the Paper?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot tell.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I can tell you he was.
    Mr. SAMUELS:I wish to say that in the administration of justice in Ireland we do not depend upon questions put down in the House.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the police were instructed not to place this man under arrest?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what justice is in Ireland?

    PRESS CENSOR.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state who has been appointed Press Censor in Ireland in succession to Lord Decies, and by whom and on whose recommendation?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The Lord Lieutenant has been pleased to appoint Major Bryan Ricco Cooper, D.L., to be Press Censor in Ireland in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel the Right Hon. Lord Decies, D.S.O., resigned. His Excellency has satisfied himself that Major Cooper possesses the necessary qualifications for the post.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, now that the Lord Lieutenant has satisfied himself, satisfy the House of Commons as to the qualifications of this gentleman?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order!
    Mr. DEVLIN: Has Major Cooper any qualification except that he was a defeated Unionist candidate in Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Major Cooper is a very gallant gentleman. He served gallantly in the 5th Connaught Rangers. He is author of a book on the 10th Irish Division. He was subsequently Censor at Salonika, and was for nearly two years in the Press Section of the War Office.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Was he ever in Zululand?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what additional experience he had beyond his censoring at Salonika, and are his services at Salonika the highest and most pre-eminent qualification for a good administrative position in Ireland?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Why is a new Censor being appointed in Ireland while the English Censor is being abolished on the same day?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must have notice.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He could not answer if he had notice.

  ALIENS.

    ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL (DRAFT ORDER).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will forthwith lay upon the Table of the House the draft Order in Council which he proposes to issue under the powers of the Aliens. Restriction Bill when passed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I think the most convenient course will be for me to circulate to members of the Standing Committee to which this Bill has been referred a draft of the Order in Council, which as at present advised I should propose under the powers which would be given by the Bill. It must be understood, however, that this draft will necessarily be uncompleted and
    306
    will remain subject to correction till the time when, if the Bill becomes law, the Order is laid before the House as required by the Bill.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that this Order interests other Members of the House besides the Standing Committee, would the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy on the Table of the House?
    Mr. SHORTT: I will consider that point.

    DENATURALISATION (CAROLINE HANEMANN).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the course adopted by his Department in the case of Laszlo, he will give the names of the persons who stood sponsors for Caroline Hanemann, naturalised since the outbreak of war and recently denaturalised?
    Mr. SHORTT: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer given by my predecessor on the 25th October, 1917, in the case of Laszlo he will find that it was only on account of the special importance of the Laszlo case that an exception was there made to the general practice of not giving the names of referees. The case of Hanemann is not of the same order of importance as that of Laszlo. No Member, past or present, of this House was concerned with the naturalisation and I see no reason for making an exception to the general practice.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the wife of any Member of this House was one of the sponsors?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider it a case of importance, is it not a fact that this lady was resident at 10, Downing Street for three months in 1916, during the regime of the late Prime Minister; and in these circumstances will he not reconsider the position?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think that makes any difference.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that for a German agent to be resident at 10, Downing Street is not a matter of importance in war-time?
    Brigadier-General CROFT: What is the secret reason why the names of sponsors should not be given in this important question?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer this question to Major Cooper?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer I have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

    RUSSIANS (NATURALISATION).
    29. Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary if he can say how many Russians were naturalised in the year 1918; and how many were naturalised during the first three months of the present year?
    Mr. SHORTT: The figures are respectively 142 and 58.

  LONDON OMNIBUS FARES.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Home Secretary if he has inquired into the reason of the increased omnibus fares in London; whether he proposes to see, in the interests of the travelling public, that the present fares are immediately reduced; and, if he has no power in the matter, will he take steps to see that such powers are granted to him with the least possible delay?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have no power to fix or control omnibus fares in London, but, as the matter is one of public importance, I am making certain inquiries in the matter, and the London General Omnibus Company has agreed to put full information at my disposal.
  Mr. TERRELL: May I ask why it is that the right hon. Gentleman has powers to fix taxi-cab fares for the rich and has not power to fix fares for the poor?
  Mr. SHORTT: Because Parliament so arranged it.
  Lieutenant-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the President of the Board of Trade to get the whole question of London traffic referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses?

  TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS.
  Mr. JOHN JONESasked the Home Secretary whether temporary Civil servants of over fifteen and twenty years' service in Departments under his jurisdic-
  308
  tion will now be made permanent servants and put on the pension able staff, so that they may receive the benefits to which their services should entitle them?
  Mr. SHORTT: The whole question of unestablished employés of Government Departments was reviewed by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, who made certain recommendations on the subject. The number of quasi-permanent unestablished officers employed under the Home Office is small as compared with the total number of such officers in Government services, and the question of making any alteration in their status cannot be dealt with separately.
  Mr. JONES: further asked the Home Secretary whether temporary Civil servants of over ten years' service in Departments under his jurisdiction who have been standing off for a time during the War will be reinstated and established in the positions which they held, and will they receive increases of salary equal to the increased cost of living?
  Mr. SHORTT: I do not know to what class of Civil servants the hon. Member refers, and shall be glad if he will give me further particulars.

  RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (DEPORTATION).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether any, and, if so, how many Russian subjects are now being held in gaol; whether it is intended to deport them as having revolutionary views; and, if so, will they be sent to parts of Russia where they will not be shot as Bolsheviks by the counter revolutionaries?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is intended immediately to deport approximately eighty persons (who are in the meantime held in custody) either as sympathisers with the Bolshevik Government or as offenders against the laws of this country. It is proposed that they shall be landed at Odessa.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that the end of the right of asylum in this country?
  Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending a special British representative to Russia to ensure the safety of these prisoners, and is not the

  309
  hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) admirably qualified for that important position?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether, sooner than let these fifty Russians be butchered by counter-revolutionists at Odessa, he will send somebody to protect them?
  An HON. MEMBER: Go with them.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Send Major Cooper.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked where Russians deported from this country are landed?
  Mr. SHORTT:I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme as regards the deportations immediately in contemplation, and on the general question can only say that Russians are deported by whatever route is found practicable and suitable in the circumstances of the moment.
  Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask where the Russians already deported have been landed; which is the question I meant to ask?
  Mr. SHORTT: I must have notice of that.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were those men who wanted to go back to Petrograd sent to Odessa, where the enemies of the Bolsheviks are in command?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is because of the shipping.
  Mr. BILLING: Will they be exchanged for British subjects who wish to get back from Russia?
  Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: May I say that the question on the Paper—[Hon Members: "Order, order."]
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Give a new Member a chance.
  Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for an answer to the question?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question has been answered.

  DOUBLE RENT.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Home Secretary whether the Act of George III.
  310
  is in existence under which judges have the power to award double rent in the case of the non-vacation of a house after the expiration of notice; whether he is aware this Act is still being put in force; and whether, if it is still valid, he will consider its immediate abrogation?
  Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the case of Flannagan v. Shaw reported in to-day's "Times." It appears that the operation of the Act of 1737 is suspended by Section 1 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act of 1915.

  DOGS (VIVISECTION).
  Captain WALTER ELLIOTasked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of dogs in the United Kingdom; the number, or an estimated number, of dogs vivisected during the course of each year without anæsthetic or other precautions capriciously or for profit by dog fanciers; whether all or any premises of dog breeders or fanciers are liable to in spection day and night by Home Office inspectors; and the number of dogs annually destroyed in the United Kingdom with and without anæsthetics?
  Mr. SHORTT: No exact figures are available as to the number of dogs in the United Kingdom, but it was estimated in 1917 that there were between three and four million dogs in the country. The number at the present is probably less. I have no information as to the number of dogs operated upon by dog fanciers or other persons for other than experimental purposes. The premises of dog breeders or fanciers are not liable to inspection by the Home Office. I am unable to state the number of dogs annually destroyed in the United Kingdom.

  MESSRS. DUNLOP, BIRMINGHAM.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the employment by Messrs. Dunlop, Birmingham, of women on night work, including the manufacture of golf balls; whether, in view of Section 26 of the Factory and Workshop Act, he will say if such employment has been with his knowledge and consent; and if he will furnish information of any suspensions of' Sections 24 and 26 of the Acts above named with reasons therefor?
  Mr. SHORTT: Women and boys over sixteen years of age are employed in certain of this firm's works at night, in pursuance of Emergency Orders made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The stoppage of night work immediately the pressure of war contracts ceased would have involved the discharge of over 3,000 workers, and the system of shifts which was in force during the War has been continued for a short period to give the firm time to make other arrangements, on condition that women and boys should only be employed at night on work which is essentially women's and boys' work. I am informed that no women are employed on the night shift in the manufacture of golf balls. The bulk of the work of the factories is work of national importance. The question of night work in rubber works was recently considered by the Joint Industrial Council for the Industry, and the action of the Home Office in this case is in accordance with the recommendations of the council. Emergency Orders have been granted in a number of other cases on similar grounds.

  OVERSEA SETTLEMENT (SOLDIERS' WIDOWS).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now say what is the position as regards emigration of the widow, with children, of a soldier killed in the War; and whether she and her children are eligible for the free passages which the Government have announced themselves as willing to provide for ex-Service men and their dependants to the nearest convenient port to their destination overseas provided that she is proceeding to relatives and is acceptable to the authorities of the Dominion to which she wishes to proceed?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): The privileges announced in connection with passages for ex-Service men will be extended to the widows and to the children of such men, provided that they are entitled to pension from Imperial funds under the terms of the Pensions Warrants.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what authority the widows are to apply?
  Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: To the Oversea Settlement Office, 59, Victoria Street.

  SOCIALISM (QUEENSLAND PUBLICATION).
  Mr. HARTSHORNasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to a publication of the Government of Queensland entitled "Socialism at Work," showing how the Queensland Government succeeded in profitably establishing State ventures where the needs of the people called for State competition or State monopoly; and if, in view of the great importance of the results achieved by the Labour Government of Queensland, he will reprint this State paper for the information of this House and of the country?
  Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I do not consider that the Government would be justified in incurring the expense of reprinting the pamphlet, but I shall be very happy to place a copy in the Library for the use of Members.
  Mr. TERRELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman also publish some information as to how socialism works in Russia?
  Mr. WATERSON: And, in addition, Queensland?

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (COMMANDEERED BUILDINGS).
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether premises are still being held in London by the Government which the owners are anxious to have re stored to them, while huts are being sold privately and by public auction; and, if this is so, whether instructions will be given to erect these huts on vacant spaces in and around London for the purpose of transferring to them the staffs now occupying commandeered buildings?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the last part, huts are already being and will be utilised wherever possible for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member; some will, in fact, be used on the site being acquired at Acton.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Could not some of the commandeered buildings be given up, and thereby save unnecessary expense?
  Sir A. MOND: I hope it will be done when huts are erected.
  Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of these premises are being used for storing away Government letters which are filed away and could be removed to the country or else burned?
  Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of that fact.
  Captain TERRELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will visit the offices at present occupied by the Petrol Committee in Berkeley Street he will find the ground floor so occupied.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Could not all those documents be sent to Dublin Castle?
  Sir N. GRIFFITHSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused to the public through the retention by the Government of various important buildings commandeered for purposes of war; and whether, in view of the fact that there are a considerable number of suitable premises available, provided adequate rent is paid for them, he will take steps to have those premises, which are urgently required, vacated, or, in lieu thereof, pay their owners, a fair market rate for their continued use by the Government?
  Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the last part, exhaustive enquiries do not support the statement that there are a considerable number of suitable premises available which could be secured for the purpose suggested. If, however, the hon. Member can give me particulars of any such premises I should be only too pleased to consider them. Compensation for loss occasioned by Government occupation during the War is paid under the Awards of the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission, and if occupation should be continued after the Declaration of Peace rent or compensation will be payable under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the
  314
  advisability of taking over the large and commodious premises of the German, Embassy at Carlton House Terrace?
  Sir A. MOND: No, Sir.

  ENGINEERING INSTITUTES.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of his assurance that he fully appreciated the importance of releasing the engineering institutes at the earliest possible moment, and was making every effort to do so, he can now inform the House whether the earliest possible moment has yet arrived; if not, when it will; and what efforts he has been able to make towards that end?
  Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards the Mechanical Engineers Institution, I am arranging a scheme for the gradual surrender of the accommodation so far as possible in accordance with the requirements of the institution. It is impossible at present to give a date for the release of the institutes, but I am in constant communication with the occupying Departments on the question of the reduction of their staffs, on which the date of vacation depends.

  OFFICES COMMANDEERED (KINGSWAY).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the fact that tenants of business properties in Kingsway were informed when their offices were commandeered that they must not take temporary premises on longer leases than three months after the War; and, as they are now informed that their premises will be retained for two years after the War, will he explain how he proposes to house the Kingsway tenants, how he proposes to protect them in their pre-war rentals of their old premises, and what is the estimated cost to the State of this wholesale confiscation of business premises?
  Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member's information is not correct. The tenants were advised that temporary arrangements for premises should extend for a period terminating three months after the

  315
  Declaration of Peace and the possibility of a continuance after such a date was indicated. Where the tenants are unable to secure extensions of their present temporary tenancies every assistance will be rendered by my Department to suggest other temporary premises to which they can be removed if they are unable to secure such accommodation themselves. As regards the increased rentals which may have to be paid under the new tenancies, all the circumstances will be taken into full consideration by the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission in connection with the compensation claims. It is not at present possible to estimate the cost involved in the requisitioning of these Kingsway properties.
  Mr. HIGHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that all the tenants of the Kingsway properties have endeavoured to find other accommodation, even of a temporary character, and that all the estate agents have informed them that there is no available space and in three or four months time these British firms will be homeless so far as office accommodation is concerned, and how does he propose to deal with it?
  Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of that fact.

  ADMIRALTY ARCH, CHARING CROSS.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works what is the present position of the improvement of the approach to the Admiralty Arch, Charing Cross; whether it is proposed to complete the improvement at once; and when it will be put in hand?
  Sir A. MOND: This improvement, which will be carried out by the London County Council, has been postponed owing to Treasury restrictions on expenditure which have only just been removed, and no decision has yet been arrived at as to when the work shall be put in hand.

  CLOTHING AND DRAPERY (PRICES).
  Mr. CAIRNSasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been drawn to the prices now being charged for clothing and drapery; and whether he will con-
  316
  sider the advisability of appointing a Committee to inquire into this matter, with a view to steps being taken to abolish profiteering?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend, the acting-President, is giving careful consideration to the general question of prices, and I shall be very glad to lay before him any special information which the hon. Gentleman may be able to furnish as regards the particular industry referred to in the question.

  COUNTY HALL, WESTMINSTER.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he still retains possession of all or any part of the new County Hall, Westminster Bridge; what part he has released for the use of the London County Council; and when he proposes to give up the whole of the building now occupied by the Government?
  Sir A. MOND: As regards the first part of the question, possession is still retained of a portion of the premises. As regards the second part, accommodation has already been released sufficient to accommodate a staff of 300 of the London County Council. As regards the last part, the surrender of the remaining accommodation is entirely dependent upon the diminution in the staff of the Ministry of Food, but a scheme is being arranged with the London County Council in regard to the gradual vacation of the building, by which a further 25,000 feet will be surrendered by June.
  Captain TERRELL: What Government Department is housed in the County Hall?
  Sir A. MOND: The Ministry of Food.

  DUKEDOMS OF ALBANY AND CUMBERLAND.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to abolish the peerages of which the Dukes of Albany and Cumberland have recently been deprived; and, if not, whether the heirs of such dukes will ultimately become eligible for the assumption of the titles?
  Mr. SHORTT: The position with regard to the peerages in question is determined by the Titles Deprivation Act, 1917, to which I would refer the hon. Member.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Have these peerages definitely lapsed or are they still open for some future heirs or successors?
  Mr. SHORTT: I will make inquiries.

  HONOURS LIST (JOURNALISTS).
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister (1) what is the total percentage of gentlemen connected with journalism in the recent honours list; what is the percentage of viscounts, baronets, and knights, respectively, engaged or interested in newspaper services; (2) what is the total number of newspapers in which recent recipients of honours are interested as owners or otherwise?
  Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury):The information desired by the hon. and gallant Member is public knowledge, obtainable by anyone who makes the necessary inquiries.
  General CROFT: Are not the percentages rather high bearing in mind the Prime Minister's indifference to a "good Press"?

  FOREIGN SECURITIES (PENAL TAX).
  Colonel BURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the penal tax of 2s. in the £ in respect of dividends on Canadian Pacific Railway Stock not loaned to His Majesty's Treasury has been discontinued on 5th April as promised?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not propose to ask Parliament to renew this tax, and as soon as the Income Tax Resolution has been agreed to the tax will be discontinued as from the 5th April last.

  SOLICITORS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange that solicitors who joined His Majesty's Forces within three years after being admitted shall not, as a result of their military service, lose the benefit of the provision under which solicitors' cer-
  318
  tificate duty is payable at only one-half the full rate for the first three years after admission?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:I have considered this class of case, and have authorised the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, on being satisfied as to the facts, to allow a claim for repayment of half the duty where the period which has elapsed from the time of the solicitor's admission, excluding the period of his service with the forces, is less than three years.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the "National Food Journal" for April, the official organ of the Food Ministry, in which the revocation of the Wholesale Milk Dealers'(Control) Order, 1918, is stated to be without prejudice to any action towards the permanent control of the wholesale trade in milk that may be decided upon by the Government; whether the Government are now considering the nationalisation of the wholesale trade in milk, and what evidence they have before them, or are collecting, to justify either the expediency or the fitness of the step?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The whole question of the desirability of exercising a permanent control over the wholesale trade in milk is being exhaustively examined by the Ministry of Food, the Departments of Agriculture, and the Local Government Board. It is expected that proposals will be placed before the Cabinet at an early date, but it will be for Parliament to decide upon the expediency or the fitness of any steps that may be proposed.
    Mr. JONES: Have they taken any evidence from any of the people engaged in this trade or any consumers of milk or any of the interests involved?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member will read my reply, he will see that the whole question is being exhaustively examined, and I mean by that that all interests are being considered in the inquiries which are being made.
    Mr. JONES: Considered and consulted?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Considered and consulted.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principal trouble in the milk trade arises in the retail shops, and not in the wholesale trade?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The milk trade is so widely diffused that I am not able to apportion blame.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry include the production of milk or simply the control of it after it has been produced?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The whole question of production and distribution.
    Brigadier-General PALMERasked the Food Controller if he is aware of the great dissatisfaction among farmers at the price fixed for milk, particularly for undelivered milk at 1s. 8d., and also of the grave effect it will have on the country districts on account of the farmers preferring to send the milk away in bulk to retailing it in the villages at the fixed price; and if he will see his way in future, before fixing prices, to consult the local food committees?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is not quite clear what prices the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but I assume that he refers to retail prices in the first part of the question. These prices have been fixed in each area after full consideration of the local conditions of supply, and the local food control committees are always consulted before these prices are determined. There is no inducement for a farmer to send his milk away in bulk rather than retail it where a market is available, since the retail price is never fixed at a lower rate than the producer's price. If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with the details of the particular case to which he refers I will have inquiries made.

    BRITISH MEAT.
    Brigadier-General WIGANasked the Food Controller if he will state the total amount of the moneys remaining in the hands of the State as a result of dealing in British meat whilst under control after all expenses have been paid?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No profit has accrued to the State as a result of its dealings in British meat.
    Mr. J. W. DENNIS: What are the aggregate expenses that have been incurred?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Member had better put that down and I will endeavour to get the information.

    BRITISH WHEAT.
    Brigadier-General WIGANasked the Food Controller if he will state the total amount of the moneys remaining in the hands of the State as a result of dealing in British wheat while under control after all expenses have been paid?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Government deals with British wheat only through the flour mills which it controls. The mills sell all flour at a subsidised price in order to produce a 9d. loaf, and no profit, but a substantial loss is made on the transaction.
    Mr. BILLING: In this loss is the wheat that has been sent by the Government to Germany taken into consideration and written off?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Clearly that sort of supplementary question is only wasting time. Will the hon. Member be good enough to take the trouble to hand in questions of that kind?
    Mr. BILLING: This is a distinct question as to whether certain moneys have been made out of it. Presumably the Minister looks up the full facts and he will have this in mind.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is really not fair to other hon. Members not to put such questions on the Paper.

    MARGARINE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Food Controller whether he is aware of the shortage in the supply of margarine due to the export of large quantities to the Continent for sale; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in order to preserve, as far as possible, home-manufactured margarine for the home trade?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot accept the view that the issuing of licences for export has resulted in any appreciable shortage in the supply of margarine. I may add that no licences for the export of margarine have been issued since 31st March.

    MEAT.
    Sir N. GRIFFITHSasked the Food Controller whether meat was supplied last week to butchers at Wandsworth which

    321
    they considered unfit for sale and declined to accept; whether they were, in consequence of this protest, deprived of the remainder of their supplies till Thursday, when, in order to obtain the balance of their allocation, they agreed to accept the inferior meat; and why it was that, in spite of this action taken by the Wandsworth butchers, the people of Wandsworth were penalised and did not receive their full quota of meat?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The statement that butchers in Wandsworth were supplied with meat unfit for sale is incorrect. All meat before going into distribution is graded by experts appointed by the Ministry, and only meat above a certain standard is issued. The allocation made to the Wandsworth district consisted of exactly the same proportions of British and imported meat respectively as were distributed to all other London districts. Buyers are not permitted to select a portion of their allocation which they are prepared to take and reject the other portion. Inquiry into the action of the Wandsworth butchers shows that their refusal to accept their allocation was not justified and any shortage in the supplies received by them is attributable solely to the delay occasioned by that action.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I brought to the notice of his predecessor a whole draft of oxen exhibited for sale in butchers' shops in Streatham, which is part of Wandsworth, and that when the Food Controller sent down he was not able to prove that the facts that I brought to his notice were incorrect?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Presumably the hon. and gallant Member is referring to ancient history.
    Sir F. HALL: Four months ago.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think that was before my tenure of office.
    Sir F. HALL: I said your predecessor.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Any facts which the hon. Member submits to me will receive careful consideration.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Were the parties who decided that the food was fit for consumption the same parties who allocated the meat? If so, could they be expected to condemn their own judgment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think my hon. Friend is incorrect. They are distinct parties.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Burton-on-Trent was suffering from the same complaint last week, and the butchers refused to accept it?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Food Controller if his attention has been called to the statement that inferior qualities of meat are being allocated to the British market while the better qualities are being sent to enemy countries; and if, in view of the importance of the question, he will say what is being done in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My attention has been called to this statement. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that it has no foundation. No fresh or frozen meat of any description has been sent to enemy countries.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that London is provided with better meat than in the past, and a fairer share of fresh meat?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am doing my best in that regard, I can assure my hon. Friend.
    Sir F. HALL: In view of the few complaints is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because we are desirous of helping the Food Ministry, and will they do their best to assist people?
    Mr. ROBERTS: We are doing so.

    BEER.
    Mr. MADDOCKSasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that certain brewers have recently been allowed to manufacture and export beer in excess of that proportion of their statutory barrelage which they are allowed to manufacture in accordance with the general permit to brewers; and whether he is aware that the beer thus exported is of unrestricted gravity while the beer manufactured for consumption in this country is restricted to an average gravity of 32 per cent.?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. The course to which the hon. Member refers has been followed in view of the strong desirability of re-establishing trade

    323
    carried on before the War to such an extent as is compatible with the present requirements of this country and the materials available. I may say, as regards the second part of the question, that it is necessary that beer which will not in any case be consumed for some time, should be of a higher gravity than is at present normal in this country.
    Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is right to export beer when there is a shortage in this country?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not the time for argument.

  COAL COMMISSION (COMPOSITION).
  Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that more than 100,000 mining officials, including managers, under managers, engineers, commercial staffs, and all kinds of surface and underground officials, and also general workers, are entirely unrepresented on the present Coal Commission; and what steps he proposes to take in order to remedy this injustice to the middle class in mining and other workers engaged in the by-product and general mining industry who are not members of the Miners' Federation?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Coal Commission has been carrying out its duties through a long series of meetings, and it is obvious that its composition cannot now be changed. The Government, however, believe that the interests of those to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers will not be overlooked.

  WINES (IMPORTATION LICENCE).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the House any information regarding the temporary suspension of the general licence issued for the importation of wines; whether the licence suspended refers only to wines imported from other countries than France. Italy, and Portugal; or whether the suspension relates only to such wines included in such licence?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The general licence alluded to relates to wine other than that
  324
  which is the produce of France, Italy, Portugal, and the British Dominions, and was temporarily suspended at the request of the Treasury for exchange reasons. The suspension has now been withdrawn.

  SHEET GLASS IMPORTED.
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are at present in force any restrictions on the import of sheet glass; and, if so, whether, in view of the high prices being charged for glass in this country and the great demand in connection with the projected housing schemes, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing these restrictions?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The import of sheet glass is at present prohibited, but will at an early date come under review by the Imports Consultative Council, and I hope that it will be possible very shortly to announce a decision on the subject.

  BISHOPSGATE STREET STATION.
  Colonel THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a big demand by the travelling public on the Great Eastern Railway to open the Bishops gate Street Station because there are some thousands of people who are put to a good deal of inconvenience every day who have to travel to Liverpool Street Station on account of the Bishops gate Street Station being closed; if he is aware that in pre-war days thousands of people used to go to and from the station in question; and if he will make representations to the Great Eastern Railway Company with a view to having the suburban side of the station opened at the earliest opportunity?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will make inquiries, and inform the hon. Gentleman of the result.

  RAILWAY HOLIDAY TRAFFIC.
  Mr. BECKETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to induce the public to meet the suggestions of the Railway Executive Committee in regard to earlier holidays, he will consider the advisability of issuing during May, June, and the early part of July,

  325
  special railway tickets at reduced fares, and available for the return journey within reasonable periods, to recognised holiday districts and health resorts, provided that persons using such tickets travel on certain days of the week only?
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in order to encourage the public to take their summer holidays in May, June, and July, and so relieve the pressure on the railways, he will consult the Railway Executive as to the advisability of issuing cheap holiday fares during such months?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will answer this question with the question on the same subject by the hon. Member for West Woolwich. The Railway Executive Committee are being asked to consider the suggestions made in these questions.
  Colonel THORNE: Have any representations been made to the War Office with a view to getting more locomotives over from France, so that we may have cheaper train fares?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are doing all we can to get them back. Every step has been taken that can be taken to facilitate their return.

  LEWES GAS COMPANY.
  Lieutenant-Colonel CAMPIONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that for the period from 1st May, 1918, the Lewes Gas Company has only been able to obtain 804 tons of coal, whereas their contract was for the supply of 1,500 tons for the twelve months; that they are now asked by the Coal Controller to pay as much as 46s. 3d. per ton, whereas the contract price was 36s. 1½d. per ton; and whether steps can be taken to secure delivery of the coal in accordance with the terms of the contract?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: From the weekly returns rendered by the Lewes Gas Company to the Controller of Coal Mines, the quantity of coal received by them since 1st May, 1918, is about 4,500 tons, and it would seem, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend is alluding to a contract with a particular colliery. Owing to strikes and stoppages at certain pits in Yorkshire and the Midlands, deliveries have fallen into arrears, and arrangements have been made by the Coal Controller to forward coal from Durham to a consider-
  326
  able number of gas works in the South of England, so as to enable them to continue operations. The increase in price would appear to be accounted for by the general increases in colliery prices in June and July last, amounting to 4s. per ton, with additional transport charges on coal brought from more distant collieries.

  MUNITIONS.

    DINAS MAWDDWY EXPLOSIVES STORES.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he will state the salary paid to the superintendent of the explosives store at Dinas Mawddwy; what his duties consist of and the amount of time devoted to such duties, also the salary of each of the two clerks and their respective duties; whether about ten labourers are still employed at the store, and, if so, for what purpose; and whether, in the interests of national economy and having regard to the fact that explosives are only stored at Dinas Mawddwy, he will take steps to dispense with the services of these persons?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The superintendent is paid at the rate of £200 per annum. He is responsible for the safe custody and administration of the magazine; these duties occupy the whole of his time. The two clerks are paid 60s. and 35s. per week; the first is a tally clerk and the second is a woman clerk engaged on ordinary clerical duties. The ten labourers are employed in handling and storing the packages of explosives.

    LOCOMOTIVE PURCHASE.
    Mr. JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether a locomotive manufactured by Messrs. Hudswell, Clarke, and Company, Limited, Leeds, was bought second-hand by the Ministry in July, 1917, for £399; whether Mr. J. C. Edwards, Terra Cotta Works, Ruabon, on applying for particulars of available engines, was offered this same locomotive by the Ministry of Munitions, Room 121a, Charing Cross Embankment, and asked the sum of £1,150 for it, although it is stated to require re-tubing; and, if so, whether these methods of trade have received the sanction of the Government?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The facts are as stated in the first and second parts of the question. In suggesting a price of £1,150 the Department was guided by the amounts being received for similar class locomotives.

    FOLESHILL TENANTS' ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. SWANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he has received a resolution from the Foleshill Tenants' Association demanding a reduction in the rents of the Government cottages at Coventry on the ground that they are too high in view of the unhealthy conditions of the cottages and the lack of convenience; and whether he will make inquiries into this matter and see that some reply is given to the representations made by the association?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is under consideration, and a reply will be given in due course to the representations made by the association. There is no truth in the allegation that the cottages are unhealthy.

    NITRATES.
    captain TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the shortage of nitrates for use on the land; and whether he can arrange to liberate larger quantities immediately?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no shortage of nitrate for use on the land. The Ministry of Munitions are ready and willing to dispose of their stocks of nitrates, but there is at present no appreciable demand from farmers in this country.
    Mr HIGHAM: Is it not a fact that the present Government price is £25 a ton for nitrate, although nitrate can be brought into this country and be sold at £13 a ton?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The price is fixed by the Board of Agriculture. The figures given by the hon. Member are not correct. The price is £20 a ton.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Is not that the reason why the farmer does not take nitrate to use on his land?
    Captain TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman give the names of his advisers who tell him that there is no shortage of nitrate in the country?
    Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: Does the hon. Gentleman know that there are stores in this country filled with nitrate of soda, and that as a consequence large quantities of wool, for which the stores could be used, could be stored there if the nitrate was sold to the farmers?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will make inquiries.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has so much information that he appears to have other means of knowledge.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (ALTERNATIVE WORK).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked what steps he has taken to secure alternative work for Woolwich Arsenal in accordance with the Prime Minister's undertaking in December last?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The following classes of alternative work are now being carried on at Woolwich Arsenal:

    1. The repair of railway wagons.

    2. The repair of motor lorries.

    3. The manufacture of certain articles for the Ministry of Food.

    In addition arrangements have been made for some tanks to be sent to Woolwich for repair, and negotiations are proceeding for undertaking other classes of work.

  UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION.
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Minister of Labour whether any, and, if so, how many, agricultural labourers in the northern counties of England are now receiving unemployment donation; and whether he is aware that the Labour Exchanges are quite unable to meet the requests for agricultural labour which are being made to them?
  Sir R. HORNE: The number of agricultural labourers drawing out-of-work donation in the counties of Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, and Westmorland, during the week ended the 16th April was 230. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. Among the reasons which militate against the supply of agricultural labour are the shortage of skilled men or men whom the farmers will employ among the applicants for work, and the lack of housing accommodation, which tends to make labour difficult to move.
  Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any complaints regarding the administration of out-of-work donation at the Coat bridge Employment Exchange; whether he is aware of a complaint that when men apply at the Exchange for payment they are treated in an insolent manner by the officials; that men are kept reporting each day for four or five weeks without receiving benefit, the excuse being that the officials are waiting the decision of the Court of Referees on some minor point; that on the 1st April a number of men were dismissed from the firm of Messrs. Stewart and Lloyd and reported at the Exchange the day after; that on the 7th April about twenty of the men were instructed by the Exchange to present themselves at another works where they would be found employment; that the men applied as instructed and they were informed by the foreman that he had no work to suit them as they were too old; that the men returned to the Exchange and reported their failure to obtain employment; and that when they applied on the following Friday for benefit they were informed that there was none for them until their case had been considered by the Court of Referees; and whether, in view of the fact that all the men concerned are married with families, are sober and industrious working men, and had worked for their previous firm all their previous working lives, he will make inquiries into the matter and secure better administration of the unemployment scheme at Coat bridge?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am making inquiries into the facts of this complaint and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course

  DEMOBILISATION.

    CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that the Civil Service appointments reserved for demobilised soldiers under the reconstruction scheme are open only to those soldiers who have had continuous school education to the age of seventeen and in some cases nineteen, notwithstanding that candidates sit for a qualifying examination which tests their fitness, and that the above reservation excludes all who have not been at fee-paying or private schools, he will abolish a restriction which operates in favour of a class, and rely solely
    330
    on the fitness and knowledge of the candidates irrespective of the number of years it may have taken them to acquire same?
    Mr. S. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Islington, N., on the 11th March.

  SHOP STEWARD, HALESOWEN FOUNDRY.
  Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a stoppage of work has occurred at the foundry of Messrs. C. B. Parkes and Son, Crown Works, Halesowen; that the stoppage of work took place in consequence of the dismissal of a shop steward, who was appointed by the malleable castors section to interview the management to discuss a wages question; if he is aware that it is the general practice of employers to allow properly appointed shop stewards to discuss wages questions with them; and if he will use his good services with a view to the settlement of the dispute?
  Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that the stoppage of work occurred in connection with a dispute as to wages, that the matter was discussed with a shop steward, and that after the men had handed in their notices the shop steward was given notice by the firm. The Department has offered its services in order to effect a settlement, and it is hoped that a settlement of the dispute will be arrived at.

  TRADE UNION RULES.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Labour if he can give any definite information of the trade union rules which have been suspended during the War, and which the Government now desire to restore by legislation?
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will name and also describe the trade union rules, customs, or practices which were stated to have been suspended during the War; whether and in what manner their restoration is intended by legislative action; whether they applied to all and, if not, to what particular trades; whether any demand for

  331
  their restoration has been made by any and, if so, what trade unions; whether the policy or practice known as Ca'canny is included; if so, whether it has been denounced by responsible trade union leaders; whether and to what extent such trade union rules, customs, or practices and whether, during their operation, they had any and, if so, what effect upon output and national production?
  Sir R. HORNE: The points raised in this and the following questions are not such as can be dealt with by question and answer. They can, however, be raised in Debate on the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Bill, which is now before the House.
  Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a full statement of the practices?
  Sir R. HORNE:A full statement of all the practices that have been given up during the War would take a considerable time. The records are enormous. I shall give a general indication of those practices.
  Mr. TERRELL: It would be a matter of convenience to have some summary statement of these practices.
  Sir R. HORNE: The employers probably have some record of their own, but the record is a very large one, as I am sure my hon. Friend realises.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS).
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the President of the Local Government Board what representation, if any, will be given to the existing Poor Law authorities upon the proposed consultative councils?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 2nd April. I am sending him a copy of the reply.

  BLINDNESS (MAINTENANCE OF AFFLICTED PERSONS).
  Mr. SWANasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will
  332
  make arrangements for all persons afflicted with blindness to be under the direct control of a Government Department, that the cost of their education and maintenance should be a direct charge upon the National Exchequer, and that they should have direct representation on the various Committees appointed to look after their welfare?
  Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the problems involved in the care, education, and maintenance of the blind, with the assistance of the Advisory Committee which was established by his predecessor. He cannot at present make any statement as to the policy to be adopted.

  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING (INSPECTORS).
  Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Local Government Board if there is any recognised scheme of defining the qualifications of applicants and of examining such persons when making the appointments of inspectors and other officials charged with the duty of consulting with various local authorities in respect of housing and town planning, and whether a list of all such inspectors and officials may be issued to show the date of their appointment, the previous occupation of each gentleman prior to accepting the offer of the Local Government Board, and the present salary and allowances attached to each appointment?
  Major ASTOR: The qualifications and experience of all candidates for appointment as local commissioners, architects, and inspectors have been carefully considered by a special Committee, under the chairmanship of the Director-General for Housing, who have interviewed a large number of applicants and made recommendations to my right hon. Friend. A statement of the qualifications of the gentlemen appointed as commissioners was circulated in reply to a question put by the Noble Lord the Member for the Aldershot Division. My right hon. Friend will also be glad to circulate a similar statement regarding the architects and inspectors who have been appointed, and to send the hon. Member a copy.

  ALDERMEN (APPOINTMENT).
  Mr. SEXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the prevalence of the practice of appointing as aldermen on local authorities persons who have been defeated in the elections for councillors; whether he is aware that by this means a man who has not received the support of the electors can be, and often is, appointed as alderman for double the period of office he would have served if elected as a councillor; and whether he will introduce an Amendment to the Municipal Corporation Act with a view to stopping this practice?
  Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend is not aware of the prevalence of the practice referred to, and he does not think that it is necessary to introduce legislation expressly to prohibit the election as an alderman of a person who has been an unsuccessful candidate at the election of councillors.

  RETURNING OFFICERS' FEES.
  Mr. BROMFIELDasked whether the fees of returning officers for the recent Parliamentary election have been paid in all cases; and, if not, when they are likely to be?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Some of these accounts are still unpaid for the reasons explained in my answer of the 3rd ultimo to the hon. Member for Durham, but they are being disposed of as rapidly as possible.

  INSURANCE ACT (MEDICAL BENEFIT).
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, as representing the National Health Commissioners, if he is aware that, owing to the National Health Insurance Acts imposing a rate of remuneration limit of £160 per annum, a considerable number of non-manual workers whose wages, with war bonuses, now exceed that limit, will cease to be insured after 1st July next, and will thereafter have to pay for medical attendance, etc. as private patients; whether he has received representations that these workers object to being thrown out of insurance after paying contributions for so many years; and whether the Government propose to bring in a short Bill to enlarge
  334
  the limit, which, though appropriate when the Act was passed in 1911, is inappropriate now?
  Major ASTOR: Under present conditions, it is the case that many non-manual workers whose remuneration inclusive of war bonus has exceeded the rate of £160 a year, and for whom their employers have ceased on that account to pay contributions, will go out of insurance at the end of the current contribution year (30th June), and will cease to be entitled to medical benefit in December next. Representations on behalf of the persons concerned have been received from various quarters, and the whole matter is now under consideration. I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  MISSING AIRMAN (LIEUTENANT MARS).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY (by Private Notice)asked the Minister for Air whether he has any further informationas to the fate of the missing airman, Lieutenant Mars?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely):Yes. Lieutenant Mars, one of the officers of the Communications Squadron, left Nivelles, near Brussels, on 22nd June, bound for Kenley. He was observed by an officer in another aeroplane crossing the Channel, but as he failed to arrive inquiries were made at all the aerodromes to which it was thought he might be gone, and the Channel was searched and no trace of him was found. What happened was that heturned back in mid-Channel, apparently owing to engine trouble, and endeavoured to reach Nivelles, but was forced to land in a remote country district. I assume that he notified what had happened to those in the district where he lauded, but through some mistake the notification was not passed on. Full inquiry is being made on this point. I am glad to say that this officer is alive and well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ADAMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the business for next week?
Mr. SHORTT: To-morrow, if time permit, after the private Bill, the Anthrax Bill will be taken.

335
On Monday the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Restoration of pre-War Practices Bill, the Wages Temporary Regulations Extension Bill, and the City of London Police Bill.
On Tuesday, Supply—Vote for the Ministry of Food.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the Report stage on the Budget Resolutions, and, if the whole of Thursday be not required, the business will be announced later.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: When will there be an opportunity of having a statement and a discussion on affairs in Egypt?
Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer that question.
Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Government, say whether any intelligence has yet reached the Government as to the whereabouts of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? Perhaps the Minister for Air will answer that question?
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS.
Ordered, "That Mr. Wallace be discharged from the Select Committee on Pensions:
That Mr. John Taylor be added to the Committee."—[Mr. Pratt.]

GOVERNMENT WORKS AT CIPPENHAM.
Ordered, "That Sir Joseph Davies be discharged from the Select Committee on Government Works at Cippenham:
That Colonel Stephenson be added to the Committee."—[Mr. Pratt.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
South Shields Gas Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act [Matrimonial Causes (Dominions Troops) Bill [Lords.]

SUPPLY (STANDING COMMITTEE C).
Mr. MACMASTER reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolutions:

CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1919–20.—(CLASS I.)
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £55,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will coma in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant in Aid."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Macmaster to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, 1919–20).
That they had appointed Sir Watson Rutherford to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the Women's Emancipation Bill and the Statement of Rates Bill).
That they had appointed Mr. Mount to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill).
That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Aliens Restriction Bill).
Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That the following Members are discharged from Standing Committee D at the conclusion of the Bill now under consideration; Mr. Burn, Mr. Coote, Sir Maurice Dockrell, Mr. Donald, Mr. Lynn, Mr. MacVeagh, Major Morrison-Bell, Major O'Neill, and Captain Redmond
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee D the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill); Mr. Acland, Major Barnes, Major Barnston, Sir John Bethell, Colonel Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. Cautley, Brigadier-General Colvin, Captain Coote, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Fisher, Captain FitzRoy, Mr. Joseph Green, Major Howard, Mr. Irving, and Mr. Neil Maclean.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee D the following Members (for the consideration of the acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill, and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill):—Mr. Attorney-General, Major Watts Morgan, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Munro, Sir Robert Newman, Lieutenant-Colonel Parry, Mr. Pretyman, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Short, Mr. W. R. Smith, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Spencer, Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall, Major Wheler, Mr. John Williams, Lieutenant-Colonel Murrough Wilson, Sir Richard Winfrey, Major Earl Winterton, and Sir Frederick Young.

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Dr. Addison and Sir Kingsley Wood; and that they had added to Standing Committee E the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Women's Emancipation Bill): Mr. Adamson, Commander Bellairs, Mr. Campbell, Mr. John Hugh Edwards, Mr. Forestier-Walker, Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood, Captain Douglas Hall, Major Hills, Captain Loseby, Major O'Neill, Mr. Sitch, Mr. Spoor, Mr. George Thorne, Captain Watson, and Sir Alfred. Yeo.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEEE.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following ten Members (in respect of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill: Major Borwick, Mr. Britton, Mr. Carew, Sir Stuart Coats, Sir Joseph Davies, Colonel Du Pre, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Hodge, Mr. Morris, and Captain Tudor-Rees.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable, absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    BUDGET PROPOSALS—INCOME TAX.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That—

    (a) Income tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, at the rate of six shillings in the pound, and the same supertax shall be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and eighteen; and

    (b) the like provisions shall have effect with respect to the annual value of property as had effect with respect thereto during the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred und eighteen; and

    (c) it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The Committee is very much indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the able, lucid, and candid way in which he dealt with a most difficult subject yesterday afternoon. He very truly reminded us, not in so many words, but in what he said, that Budgets are no mere matter of arithmetic. All Budgets, and especially these War Budgets, deeply affect not only the well-being of the State, but the well-being of every individual in the State, and I shall be very glad indeed if these discussions which have taken place and will take place bring to the minds of hon. Members, as well as the country as a whole, the salutary fact that the State is not a super-entity which finds the money, but that it is the taxpayer who finds the money for all the projects which the State undertakes. There is a far too general idea abroad at the present time—due very largely, no doubt, to the way in which Government Departments have taken up very large portions of what used to be our normal business life—that the State can do these things. It is the individual, through the State, who can alone do these things satisfactorily, and always and every time it is the individual who has to find the money for the Government Departments. The situation is sufficiently serious, and so serious is it that we were thankful for so minor a mercy as the
    390
    statement which was made by the Chancellor yesterday that in the year the National Debt is only £300,000,000 less than was anticipated. But in that year there was nearly five and a half months, I will not say of peace, but at any rate of cessation of hostilities, and that shows most clearly with what a grave and serious position we are faced. Let me try and make clear, to myself at any rate, if not to the Committee, a matter which I found rather difficult in listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and that was the two calculations that he makes. Those, of course, have only come into being, as far as the Treasury is concerned, since the War began. The two calculations which he makes are the one for the current year, 1919–20, and the calculation which he makes, in accordance with precedent, established, I think, by Mr. McKenna, and followed by his successor in office, the present Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law), of calculating a Budget or an Estimate for what is called a normal year. The first calculation which he has made for 1919–20 leaves him with a deficit of about £300,000,000, and that he quite properly proposes to meet by borrowing. In regard to that, no one can have any cavil, because we are in a year of war, and that is clearly and obviously the only way to meet it. But about this normal year, about which my right hon. Friend exhibited so much anxiety and uncertainty, it was really an imaginary year. What is the position in regard to that? He estimates his revenue for the normal year on the existing revenue basis, but the expenditure in that normal year he estimates on what we hope will be a peace basis. Just let us see how really illusory such an Estimate may very likely be.
    I will take only one of his figures—the figure of £110,000,000 for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. On what basis is that calculated? I assume it is on the basis that the Army may be, say, 200,000 men. He does not know, and nobody knows. He is in the hands of the Gentlemen who were flanking him on his right and left yesterday, and the "Janus-like Gentleman" to whom he referred, the Secretary of State for War, he keeps a watchful eye on, and is wholly uncertain in what direction he may move. I have been trying to look up the word "Janus" since, and all I can find about him is that he was a gentleman who had two faces, and lived in a temple with only one door. This door was only opened in war time, and

    391
    shut in peace. I very much fear that the present Secretary of State for War is a gentleman who wishes to keep his door open in both war and peace, as far as I can judge, from his speeches on the Bill he has introduced and the Estimates he has submitted; but whatever it may be, let me assume there will be an Army of 200,000 men. On the pre-war basis in all probability each man cost about £100, and it is a very moderate assumption to take that in a normal year each man will cost £200. That is £40,000,000 for the Army. I do not know how much for the Navy—double that, I should say, because, after all, whatever happens, the Navy is the sure shield for this country, and this country will always insist upon the Navy being maintained at a proper strength. That runs well beyond £100,000,000. Then there is the Air Force. I do not know what it cost in pre-war days, but surely it is going to run into many millions now. It is the one progressive arm of our defensive forces, and it must be an increasingly heavy charge. My right hon. Friend takes all these together and estimates them in that imaginary year—let us hope it will soon be translated into actuality—at £110,000,000. I just take that one figure to show how extraordinarily difficult it must be to make any sort of calculation, but my point about it really is this, that, taking his revenue on the present basis and his expenditure on the peace basis, he provides us with a deficit of only £114,000,000.
    4.0 P.M.
    I do not pretend to be a financier, but the fact that it is on this £114,000,000 that he bases or provides his new taxes. That shows in what a position the Committee finds itself. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked by one of my hon. Friends below the Gangway—I think it was the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) what year the normal year would be, he said, "I do not know; it cannot be next year, but let us hope it may be the year after." I am going to be bold, and to give an opinion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that the normal year that he ought to take should be 1920–21. Make it a normal year. If some such step as that be not taken, what is going to happen to our great spending Departments? What is the duty of the Treasury and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? "The watch dog," he used to be called, of all the great Departments. I am afraid my right hon. Friend has grown hoarse
    392
    with barking. I am certain he has made a great effort, but there are no signs of a bite in any one direction. On goes the expenditure. Turn where you like—Department after Department, still, after six months of cessation of hostilities, money has been poured out in all directions. [An Hon Member: "Six months?"] By 31st March next year, which I am asking him to treat as the normal year—by the time the normal years starts, on 30th March, next, he will have had sixteen months of cessation of hostilities, and, let us hope, four or five months of declared peace. I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is his duty, at all costs, to say to the spending Department, "The time has arrived for me to Budget for a normal year." It is the only way in which anything like a curb can be placed on the vast uncontrolled expenditure which is spreading devastation throughout the country. Business men are horrified at the prospect, and there is no use at all in merely making pleas for economy by the individual, although, of course, we ought all to respond to it. Let us realise the fact that we are living in a very human world, and unless the people see reduction of expenditure at the top, as long as they can get currency notes freely and get them paid out, they are going to spend them, and they are doing it.
    Is there any cessation anywhere in any department of private life—our amusements, our expenditure on luxuries—which shows the faintest sign of a real grip of the fact that this country is in a parlous financial condition? Unless we have this grip at the top there is no hope of a real, broad, general consensus of experienced work on economy anywhere near the bottom, and unless we have economy practised by the people of the country and by the Government Departments, I do not know when the normal year for any Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to arrive. After all, the index is this—the inflated currency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday gave us an indication of four periods—I never saw the handwriting more clearly on the financial wall. On 31st March last year the issue of the not currency was £228,000,000. On the day of the Armistice, 11th November, it was £291,000,000. On 31st March this year £328,000,000; on 30th April, £349,000,000.What is the cause of it? Clearly, over-consumption, under-production; vast expenditure, no real economies. As long as

    393
    that goes on, your currency will continue to be inflated, with the results which occur in every country, and which, with all our financial greatness, we cannot hope to escape—continual rise in prices, continued rise in unemployment, industrial unrest. I do not wish to refer to what happened last year. It must be present in the minds of all of us. Let us avoid revolution.
    I pass to say a word or two about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has calculated as part of his assets. Very properly he alludes to our loans. Look at them for one monent. Russia—what prospect is there of getting money out of Russia in anything like reasonably conceivable time? France—it will be a very long time before we can get anything from poor France. Then there is Belgium, Serbia, and all the rest of them. What about the indemnities from Germany? I think the right hon. Gentleman exercised a wise discretion. It is a grave disappointment, after all the hopes that were raised and all the pledges that were given; but he exercises a wise discretion, like a business man, when he puts that to the Suspense Account.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Bad debt.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: He places it to the Suspense Account. What chance is there this year of anything from Germany? Obviously, France and Belgium must have the first claim on any payment from Germany. No one for a moment murmurs at that, and will be only glad if they get it. Now let me say a word on the subject of the taxes, old and new, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. There is the Excess Profits Tax. I rather wondered that in a War Budget he reduced a war tax, but so far as I am concerned there is no doubt that the Excess Profits Tax should come to an end as soon as it reasonably can. It is not the right way to raise money if it can be avoided. It did raise money successfully, but one of its greatest defects was that it penalised young businesses and played directly into the hands of the great monopolists. It strengthened their position. It really gave to new businesses a chance—a real start. What we want are new businesses. One of the greatest needs of the country is swift development of new ventures. Whether the reduction to 40 per cent. be justified is for the right hon. Gentleman to say, but on the general subject of the removal of the Excess Profits Tax, when it can be safely
    394
    done, there can be no doubt that it is not the proper machinery for raising money in normal times.
    With regard to what he said about land values, it is rather a sad day for those of us who fought this question to find it is now proposed that it should be relegated to the lumber room of a Select Committee. I welcome what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday on land valuation. It is of importance that there should be a trustworthy valuation of the land of the country available for public purposes whenever it is required. It is required now. I do not know how many Bills there are; I have lost count of them. Certainly three, perhaps four, great Bills, and the pivot of each of these Bills is the question of what price you are going to give for the land. I do hope something will be done now in regard to that.
    My right hon. Friend dealt in more drastic fashion with the suggestion of a capital levy. As I listened to him I thought of what was said by Sir William Harcourt when he introduced his Death Duties. I should rather think that the phrases he has used and the vigorous denunciation with which he attacked a capital levy may have been the echo of Sir William Harcourt's Budget Speech. All I say about it is that it is not a matter to be dismissed with mere denunciation. If is a very serious proposal, and will have to be very seriously taken, because, rightly or wrongly—and so often the people are right when the Government think they are wrong, and great thinkers are sometimes wrong—whatever may be said in regard to this, there is not the slightest hesitation that in the minds of the people one thing is perfectly clear on taxation, and that is that war profits ought to be taxed. The theory is, of course, a perfectly sound one. It is that no one ought to have made money out of the War. We all admit that. But there will be grave public dissatisfaction if some method be not found of getting back to the public Treasury those vast sums which have gone to individuals as the price of the lives and the health of hundreds of thousands of our best citizens.
    In conclusion, I wish to say a word or two upon the subject of Imperial Preference. Merits apart, there was not a single Member of this House who did not join in the feeling of pride and satisfaction which my right hon. Friend expressed that he had the opportunity of getting legislative sanction, as

    395
    he hopes, to the beginning of a scheme of which his great father was the author, and who has now passed into the Valhalla of the British race. Just a word or two on this question. It is a beginning, and let all Free Traders in the House belonging to all parties—there are a good many still left, a good many who have not bowed the knee; they may come out, and let us know where they stand later on—but do not let us be other than quite clear on the point, because my right hon. Friend was, as he always is, quite candid about it. He said that,
    "Though the beginning may be small, the measure of what I am inviting the Committee to do is not the amount of British Imperial trade which secures preference at this moment, but the opportunities for the development of that trade, which I invite the Committee to open out…From the small beginnings of to-day I hope that many Members of this House will live to see a really wide structure of inter-Imperial trade develop."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1919, col. 195.
    Undoubtedly—and let us also be quite clear about that—that means, and must mean, as Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said, that you cannot have this Imperial Preference without a tax on food.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am loth to interrupt my right hon. Friend. Personally, I have never repented of my support, of a tax on food in pre-war times, and have never given anybody any reason to be doubtful of my opinion upon the subject. But it is no proposal of His Majesty's present Government to place new duties upon food, and what I had in mind when I used the words my right hon. Friend has quoted was that Imperial trade, now actually done in the articles made the subject of preference will, I believe, under that preference, enormously extend within the lifetime of many Members. If it go further still, I am glad, but all I had in my mind in that statement was the effect of the actual preference proposed in the present Budget.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: On the point of this being a really great structure of inter-Imperial trade, with the limitation to which my right hon. Friend has now referred, I think it is absolutely futile. However, it is the beginning, and you cannot have anything approaching a great trade with our Dominions without giving a preference on corn, on meat, and on wool, and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's well-known declaration is in the mind of everybody.
    396
    My right hon. Friend says he hopes it will go further. Of course he does, and I imagine every convinced tariff reformer in the House thought so then and thinks so now. I only say this to those who have been hitherto free traders. It is the beginnings that count, and this is the first step towards the complete system of preferential dealings with our Colonies which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said must entail a tax on food. If you set up the machine to work up the little things, the machine will go on to great things. Just let me turn, by way of illustration, to what I think is a very small indication compared with the great scale to which my right hon. Friend hopes it will attain. I only take one illustration, because there must be other opportunities of dealing with these things in detail. Take the question of tea. Ninety per cent., as my right hon. Friend told us yesterday, comes from our Empire, and we are only therefore dealing with the finer class of tea which comes from China and Java. Twopence is going to be taken off. Does anyone suppose that that is going to affect the consumer in this country? At the very most he may get a penny, and for that trifling result you give preference to India, which is not pressing for this, so far as I know; indeed, I understand—I may be wrong—that there has been no great pressure from the merchants in this country. There are three large well-known associations in this country, I think—in London, at any rate—of tea growers. I understand they discussed this matter, and not one of them gave a majority in favour of it. The whole thing is very small as far as India is concerned. It is a trifle, and what comes off will not go into the pockets of the natives but of the traders who have offices in this country. That is where the penny will go, and we shall be lucky if we get a penny off our tea.
    But what is going to be the result with regard to China? Has that been thought of? We have relations with China which have been for many years of the most amicable trading nature, and we have, of course, the benefit of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, as well as with Java, There is no greater potential market in the East than China. China has stood by us in this War. One of the very first things we may do by this trifling thing is at once to cause irritation in China. It is from these little things that all the trouble so often comes. Why disturb our friendly relations with.

    397
    China, and perhaps affect our exports to China in the future? Lancashire is deeply concerned in this matter, and I hope we shall hear something from Lancashire Members with regard to it. What about manufactured goods? Canada, Africa, and Australia are not affected by one of the things. Cinema films, clocks, watches, musical boxes, motor cars—what have our great Dominions to do with these things? They are not manufacturing them on anything but the smallest scale at present. When these taxes were first introduced, what was the reason given for them? I do not know whether it was the Leader of the House or Mr. McKenna, but I think it was Mr. McKenna, who gave the real reason, which was nothing to do with Protection or tariffs, but to save the tonnage. My right hon. Friend has now tacked them on to his Imperial train, and away this wagon-load goes. It is to go on to the great scheme of the meat, the wool, and the corn. The great Dominions have always said perfectly clearly, "In any preference you give to us, take care you do not harm your own people at home." That is the attitude they have taken. It is, and must be, the foundation-stone of the great structure which it is hoped to build, and which will smash Free Trade and establish Tariff Reform.
    We are at the parting of the ways. We must take our side on questions of principle. As far as I am concerned, and those with whom I have the honour to associate, we shall, with very great regret, have to fight this proposal. We do not like fighting this question now, when we are in the shadow of war, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand us when I say that we take our stand on these matters on the question of principle, and we are bound to omit no legitimate means of thoroughly examining the proposals. I do not want to offer any carping criticism. I only wish to say this in conclusion, on the whole question of our finance, and the sacrifices we must make, individually, socially, and in our corporate capacity: What men have died for, we, at any rate, can save money for, and economise for, because, unless we grapple with this question, and put this country of ours on a sound financial position, much of which they have died for will be lost. A "place fit for heroes to live" in cannot be constructed without sound finance, and
    398
    sound finance means the sacrifice of the individual for the good of the State. Let us all do our duty.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): The right hon. Gentleman dealt with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself treated as the most important part of his Budget in a manner to which, I think, nobody will take exception. Naturally, I join in the tribute which all Members of this House pay to the memory of that great statesman, Mr. Chamberlain, the originator, or, may I say, the reviver, of that idea of treating the Empire in matters of trade and in all matters as something different from a mere collocation of separate States. But I would remind my right hon. Friend that this policy now introduced by His Majesty's Government is not purely the policy of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain or of one party in the State, but is a policy brought forward at Imperial Conference after Imperial Conference ever since 1895, a policy to which the present Prime Minister made a most sympathetic response as far back as 1907; a policy which since then has been endorsed by more than one important Royal Commission, including Free Traders, as well as men who are Protectionists and Tariff Reformers; a policy which, finally, at an Imperial Conference two years ago was endorsed, not only by the Governments of all the Dominions, but by a British Government containing members of the Liberal party, as well as a Liberal Prime Minister, and containing among its members Mr. Henderson, who was at that time Leader of the Labour party.
    I should like to take exception to one thing which my right hon. Friend said, namely, that this is an issue of principle between Free Trade and Protection and tariffs. It is a political issue, not an economic one. What the Government of this country has agreed to is not a system of Protection including preference. It has simply agreed to this, that whatever the tariff system of this country may be, that in so far as there are duties, whether they are Protectionist Duties, Revenue Duties, or whatever kind of duties they may be, they shall not be charged upon the produce of the Empire at as high a rate as upon the produce of foreign countries. What is really at the bottom of this question is this: Is the unit at the back of our minds when we talk of politics or of

    399
    economics, merely Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or are we thinking of the great community that makes up the British Empire? If the Empire is always at the back of our minds as the real unit, as something which has a real political meaning, and which shapes our actions, it will then, I think, whether we be Free Traders or Protectionists, be found to affect our whole attitude in considering questions of this kind.
    Let me put it thus: Preference is a policy for the free-trader just as much as it is for the protectionist. The whole-hearted free-trader, who is a believer in the British Empire, would naturally like to see the whole British Empire free trade—free trade in its internal relations and free trade towards the world outside. That is an ideal. We are practical men. I should have imagined that as a genuine free-trader? He wants Free Trade in cer-forgive me if I try to put myself into his point of view for the time being and assume that I am in the position of being a convinced free-trader, and also a believer in the Empire as a whole—I should consider it a most important thing that we should have the greatest possible measure of free trade within the British Empire. I would not be satisfied that one part of the British Empire alone should have a complete Free Trade policy, and that every other part of the British Empire should be living in a world of its own, having its own protectionist regime not only against the outside world but against every other part of the British Empire. I should therefore be willing, so far as might be, and without burdening this country with a system it did not want, wherever I saw the opportunity of doing something which promoted the extension of the policy of Imperial Preference, not only between this country and the Dominions, but between each Dominion and every other Dominion, to endorse and promote that policy.
    I would remind my right hon. Friend that this policy is one which has slowly grown up within the Empire over a long period of years. By accepting the principle of Preference for its own sake, not for the sake of protection, we are here and now consecrating that policy for the Empire as a whole. We are putting the coping-stone on it. We may hope, as a result of these small measures, that we shall get an increase, not necessarily of
    400
    Protection in this country, but of Inter-Imperial Free Trade between the Dominions and this country and between one Dominion and another. That, therefore, is the object at which we are aiming. If I were in the position of an Imperial free-trader, my quarrel with this particular form of preference would be that it did not go far enough. After all, there are free-traders in other parts of the Empire. There is a very strong body of free-traders in the great Dominion of Canada. What is the line of the Canadian free-trader? He wants free trade in certain categories of goods, and as regards other categories he demands for the Empire a 50 per cent. preference instead of the 33 per cent. preference.
    I was very interested in seeing how my right hon. Friend dealt with these articles on which there is to be a 33 per cent. preference. I think he dealt with them rather contemptuously. I do not myself think he was quite fair when he said that the duties on watches were put on merely to save tonnage. These duties were imposed by one free-trader, and it would have teen a continuation of the policy of Free Trade if another free-trader had asked for a wider preference upon them. Anyhow, I do not think that this is a direct issue between Free Trade and Protection. The trade issue will be raised on its own merits, not from the point of view of Empire, but from the point of view of the trade of this country. All I myself hope is that, whatever answer is given, if that answer in any way involves any measure of duties, that then our principles of Empire Preference will apply there also.
    Do not let us make any mistake about one thing: my right hon. Friend opposite said not only that this was a question between Free Trade and Protection, but also that it was raising again the old issue of taxing the food of the people. Like my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) I am absolutely unrepentant upon that issue. I myself believe this is not relevant to this Budget, but I do believe that if that policy had been carried out in 1903 we should not have had such heavy food prices to pay at the earlier period of the War. I do not want to raise that because I do not want to raise old controversies. But I do want to say this: the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain made the speech to which my right hon. Friend referred on Imperial Preference in 1903—

    401
    sixteen years ago. At that time he considered that, as a practical measure, you would not get much out of Preference—though he would have been glad of the principle—without in some small measure taxing foreign imports of certain staple foods. The Dominions at that time were mainly producers of foodstuffs and raw material. In the sixteen years which have passed the world has moved. Canada has become a great industrial and a great manufacturing country, and Canada will be capable, under substantial Preference, in the next few years of offering quite as much effective competition to keep our manufacturers alive and up-to-date as any free trader may desire. These particular duties on motor cars, watches, and films were imposed for war-time reasons. Do not be too sure that even these duties may not be of appreciable value to Canada. The conditions of manufacture in Canada differ from those of the United States only by an invisible line 4,000 miles long on the map. The 33 per cent. off the duties may make all the difference whether the factory is on one side of the line or the other, whether under the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes. So much for the practical benefit to Canada. I do not admit that Preference is meant as a gift to anybody. We are establishing it, within the limits of the duties we impose in our own interest, in order to emphasise a certain principle which we believe to be of incalculable future value. We are giving to no one. We are simply carrying out a principle to the extent to which it is convenient to this country.
    Do, however, let me say that my right hon. Friend is entirely mistaken if he thinks that even this small measure of Preference is not of very great value to very many parts of the British Empire. It is quite true that the importation of many of these goods into this country from different parts of the Empire is very small. But the standard we have to take is not the standard of what is imported now; it is the standard of the total consumption of this country—nay, of the British Empire—in so far as there are regions in this Empire which can produce the goods in question.
    Let me take sugar. A very small fraction—I think it is 7 per cent. or so—of our total consumption comes from the British Empire. But the British Empire to-day contains soil and territory enough to produce sugar for five United Kingdoms.
    402
    The measure, therefore, of what is set in motion, not this year or next, but over a course of years, is not the 7 per cent. but the 93 per cent. In the case of tobacco, 2 per cent. comes here from the Empire. We have in mind the other 98 per cent. Three million pounds or more is the actual value landed here. It would mean an immense incentive to the small grower in the Union of South Africa, in Rhodesia, in Nyasaland where, I believe, there is something like 4,000,000 acres of good tobacco-growing land—in East Africa, some of the West Indies, and for all we know, possibly Nigeria, and, of course, India. The whole of that field is now placed as the goal before the producers of the British Empire.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Who will suffer?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I am satisfied if our people gain. Others have their own markets and their own development. I do not think we should ask ourselves the question, whether a very small reduction may be taken from the harvest of the American tobacco-grower when we can give so great an inducement to the growers in other portions of the British Empire. I admit these are small beginnings. I wonder how many Members of this Committee realise that South Africa sends us only 7,000 gallons of wine per year—a ridiculous amount. Yet South Africa is one of the finest wine-growing countries in the world. Remember that in the late "'fifties," when the population of this country was less than one-half of what it is to-day, South Africa sent us on an average 750,000 gallons of wine per year, and as much as a million gallons in one year—a hundred times more than now. There is the hope placed before their people. It is not a gift. They have to earn it by their own work, their own production, their own skill in producing a good wine. It is an encouragement and a hope. So it is to the wine-growers of Australia. In all these cases you cannot reckon by the money given. The money given is not the point. It is the hope, the credit. Men will look into enterprises which they would not have looked into before. They will take courage, and plan schemes of development over periods of years, schemes which they have neglected hitherto. Just as the foundation of capital is credit, Imperial

    403
    Preference is simply a new form of Imperial credit. That is what it really means.
    Let me put its indirect benefits. It is not merely what any particular Colony or Dominion gains in this country. It is what each gains from the development of the system as a whole. I should like to give my right hon. Friend one instance of the cumulative way in which Preference works. A certain number of years ago—ten or twelve—under the ægis of the Free Trade Government of this country, a system of mutual preference was set up between Canada and the West Indies. As a result the West Indies now get from Canada considerable quantities of flour and wheat, and a certain number of manufactured articles. Now we are going to give a measure of preference to West Indian sugar, tobacco, and coffee. That will increase the development of the West Indies as a market, and owing to the preference between Canada and the West Indies, Canada will benefit from that development, and so benefit indirectly from our preference to the West Indies. That was what my right hon. Friend indicated when he spoke of the future extension of this system. Imperial Preference does not necessarily mean Protection. What it does mean is the increase of trade and the increased sense of security throughout the Empire.
    The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of tea which is undoubtedly already in a good position in the Imperial market. As far as the ordinary merchant here is concerned he is not particularly interested. Let me make this point clear. Where the overwhelming bulk of a product already comes from the Empire the reduction of the duty will inevitably mean the reduction of the price to the consumer. My right hon. Friend opposite said that we get the best grades of tea from China and Java. We get some of the best and also some of the very inferior grades. The best grades are expensive teas on which there is, generally speaking, a considerable margin of profit. What will happen as regards these? Unless the Javan and Chinese producers are going to lose their market they will bring down their profits in order to compete. As regards the very inferior grades the preference means that the consumer will get a better Empire tea at the price which he paid for these grades. The consumer in fact will gain both in, price and in quality. He will get the better
    404
    Chinese and Javan teas cheaper than, before, and good Ceylon and Indian teas at the same price at which, he is now getting the very inferior article. My right hon. Friend said that if we do this we shall offend China, and the Dutch in Java, or some other Ally of ours. That can only be true if our assumption is that the other parts of the Empire are foreign countries and that preference means favouring one set of foreign countries over other foreign countries which have been our Allies. That is really the issue which underlies this proposal. Is the Empire merely a group of countries in the same relation to each other as to every foreign country, or has it got a real inner moral unity? Have other countries any more right to object to Free Trade within the Empire, or Preference which is a modified form of Inter-Imperial free trade, than we have a right to complain of Free Trade between Texas and Massachusetts or between one province of China and another? That is the real issue. It is not a question here of Free Trade and Protection. It is a question really whether we regard the Empire as a unit, whether we are willing to do anything in our power to help to promote mutual intercourse, understanding, and development between its component parts.
    My right hon. Friend dwelt upon the parlous position in which we find ourselves to-day. But let us look at it from the point of view of our resources. Look at it as I have done from the point of view of a man who has been through most of those countries and who has gone day after day and week after week from place to place where there are infinite possibilities of development and where only capital and enterprise are wanting. If you look at it from that point of view our burden of debt is trifling. Anything that will help that great development and enable this country to participate and to share in that great development must be desirable and necessary. Surely from the point of view of fellowship and understanding and binding the Empire closer together, anything that can increase commerce must increase mutual understanding. Anything that makes it easier for an Englishman to visit the Dominions, or for a citizen of the Dominions to visit this country, must help.
    Only those who have friends in the Dominions can understand the emotion which is in the mind of men from overseas when they see Westminster Abbey or

    405
    St. Paul's. Anybody who has visited such a place as the Heights of Abraham, where Wolfe and Montcalm fell, can appreciate what Canada means. Are those sentiments lessened because the origin of the journey was connected with business between two parts of the Empire or because there were convenient steamers which made the journey possible and which would not have existed if there had not been mutual trade? Surely we do feel that, consistent with the interests of this country, the more we can develop true commerce and intercourse between parts of the Empire, the more we can help to strengthen those Dominions whose strength has been ours in the day of trouble, the better it will be. Surely that policy is well worth pursuing and developing entirely irrespective of those old party divisions on matters of trade and economics within this country which I think we all look at with a very different eye to-day on one side and the other. We are entering upon a new period in the history of this country and the Empire, full of industrial, social, and economic problems which we have got to deal with in a new spirit, forgetting our pre-war ideas. We can, at any rate, start with this sure foundation, with the knowledge that we can only solve our local problems in this country successfully if we treat them all the time from the point of view of the wider unit.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I certainly thought that this question of Imperial Preference was one which was definitely settled at the General Election. I know it was one of the definite issues submitted by the vast majority of hon. Members who were returned to this House, and we all know that the great majority of the candidates who preached the opposite doctrine were not returned to this House. I should have thought under these circumstances that it was really a waste of time on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) to raise this Debate again here to-day. My real object in rising is to discuss for a very few moments the incidence of the Excess Profits Tax. I welcome the reduction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday, and I am certain it will be a very valuable aid to the recovery of industry and trade in this country. There is not the slightest doubt about it that although a tax of the nature of the
    406
    Excess Profits Tax was necessary as a war measure yet in times when the country is turning over from war to peace it was a most mischievous tax which retarded all development, and has proved a great injury to the recovery of trade and the consequent employment of labour.
    I am afraid from the speech made in the House yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), in which, as I understand him, he regretted the reduction or alteration of this tax that he and those associated with him have very little real knowledge as to how this tax operates. It operates in a curious manner, and in some respects the sooner we can get rid of it entirely the better it will be. I have had the opportunity of conferring this morning with a special committee of one of the associations which is representative of over 1,000 manufacturing firms in this country, and they welcome the reduction which has been made in this tax, and though they realise that it is necessary that this tax in some form or in a reduced form should continue for another year yet there is a very strong feeling that this year must be the last year of the tax in any shape or form, and that it must expire with the present financial year, and that after the short interval which will be required to level up the different accounting periods they feel that this tax should come to an end.
    5.0 P.M.
    It is not really difficult to understand why this tax is so harmful and acts so unfairly in the period of transition from war to peace. Take two firms in the same line of business who ordinarily are competitors, and one is an excess profits payer and the other is not in that fortunate position. The one who pays the excess profit is put in a position of enormous superiority over the other, because, in any expense which that firm embarks upon in advertising, developing, or extending its trade, a large part of that expense is contributed by the Government out of the sum which would otherwise be payable for Excess Profits Tax. That is a view of the tax which I am perfectly certain has not been understood by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches here, because it must be realised that that form of advantage is most unfair, and must in the long run do a great deal to discourage development. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated yesterday, it operates very unfairly on new firms in competition with

    407
    the old-established firms which are, perhaps, costly, and are paying large sums in the way of Excess Profits Tax. There are just one or two points which I wish to ask the Chancellor to consider. They are really points of injustice affecting a very large number of manufacturing firms. There is the question of the standard over which the tax is levied. As everyone understands, the standard is based on an average of certain pre-war years, and in the case of small businesses worked by partners it operates very unfairly. Wages have advanced 100 per cent., and in some cases 150 per cent., but the people engaged in these small businesses are only allowed to receive the standard which they earned in pre-war years. That is a case which requires a little sympathetic treatment from the Chancellor. I am sorry that he is not present, because I wanted to press upon him the importance of seeing whether at some later stage, either on the Report stage, or when we come to the Finance Bill itself, he cannot arrange to meet the case of the pre-war standard and in some cases to give relief. There is also the alternative percentage. Six per cent. may have been an adequate return upon capital when the War was on, but it is hardly an adequate return to-day, and it would be greatly welcomed if he could see his way to raise the alternative percentage. There is one other point which is the most important of all. There is a difficulty in finding ready money to pay this tax. A great many firms are in extreme difficulties. If it is a big firm which owes a very large sum of money to the State, it does not care a button, because the Government cannot afford to let it down. I heard some time ago of the case of a firm which owed £1,000,000 Excess Profits Tax. It had not enough money in the till with which to pay the wages. It was all right, because the Government could not afford to let it down.
    I am here to-day to plead the case of small firms which are being harassed by the Government for the payment of their tax. They cannot pay the money, and they are being threatened with proceedings. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to give the Committee some definite assurance that relief will be given in those cases, and that either the money will be accepted by instalments, as the Income Tax is being
    408
    accepted, or that where it is necessary the money will be allowed to remain on loan in the businesses. There is no reason why the Treasury should not finance firms. It is not every case, but there are certain, cases where stocks have doubled and trebled in value, and where immediate cash has gone. I should like, if it were possible, to frame an Amendment to the Financial Resolutions, but I do not quite see how one can introduce it as an Amendment to those Resolutions. At any rate, it is a matter of administration, and I ask my hon. Friend's attention to it, because unless some help is given I shall have to carry the matter forward a further stage. I beg him to report to the Chancellor that an earnest case has been made for sympathetic relief in regard to the dates for the payment of the tax, and also for some considerable portion of the tax in certain cases being allowed to remain on loan in the businesses. It is obvious, if you hamper these businesses in times like the present, that you will hamper employment. I know you cannot help it, but I suggest that it is good business to help these businesses which are giving employment. Do not throttle them. I have a letter from a firm stating that they have written to the Inland Revenue asking for time for payment, and they have got a negative answer. I beg my hon. Friend to take a note of this grievance, which is a very real one, and to see if in some way by administrative action—and I hope we shall have an assurance from him in the course of this Debate—he can give relief in all suitable cases of the kind that I have mentioned.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In almost the first sentence of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday he was good enough to invite the assistance of the House in the great task with which he is confronted, and I am bold enough to rise for the purpose of complying with that request. Following the example of the course which I was wont to adopt in previous Parliaments upon these occasions, I desire to assist him in two ways: First, by a little friendly criticism of the Budget proposals which are before us, and, secondly, by a few suggestions for the inclusion in it of things which are at present missing. Mere negative criticism, after all, is not very helpful to the Chancellor. We know very well that in working the machinery of the House the Resolutions which he has come down here to table, whatever happens, will be passed. We

    409
    know that nothing will induce him in any serious respect to deviate from them, and, recognising that, whilst I should like with respect to endorse very strongly the arguments just put forward about the Excess Profits Tax, which ought either to be left as it is or to be got rid of altogether, I shall endeavour to indicate to the Chancellor sources of revenue which apparently once more escape the attention of the Government. It has always been a source of surprise to me that on these occasions of the annual discussion of the Budget practically the whole House falls into a state of mind which seems to indicate that its sole conception of its duty is to consider only the proposals put forward by the Chancellor and not to endeavour to help him in finding other sources of revenue. In a few moments time I am going to tell the Chancellor, with respect but with no humility, where there are a few thousand millions waiting for him if he will only take them, and which he can have without inflicting hardship or injustice on any section of the community. Before doing so let me say one or two words of quite friendly and well-meant criticism of the proposal in the Budget itself.
    I take, first of all, that which is considered by some to be its principal feature. I refer to the experiment in Imperial Preference. I endorse entirely what was said by the hon. Gentleman (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery), who spoke from the Front Bench a few moments ago, that we are entitled to regard the British Empire as one great unit whose inter-fiscal relations are its own affair and have no concern whatever with the fiscal policies of other countries. It is an axiom and common sense that you cannot give preference to any section of the British Empire except at the expense of some foreign competing country. All the discussions on fiscal reform in years gone by followed that line of argument. In this case we are adopting the wrong plan of doing the right thing. Taking something off the Customs Duties on goods which come to us from our own Dominions means first of all the loss of a certain amount of revenue. If you leave those Customs Duties as they are and increase them as against foreign countries, then you get at least the same revenue plus what you may get by virtue of raising the duties upon the other goods. As it is, the Chancellor has told us that these concessions to our own Dominions
    410
    will mean a loss on many millions or money. Who pays it? It is only shifting the burden upon the British taxpayer. We do not see any certainty of the consumer getting the benefit of this reduction. Is tea going down 2d. per lb.? Not a bit of it. It will only be 1d. at the outside, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, one of the Leaders of the Opposition (Sir D. Maclean), that the other 1d. will go into the pocket of the middleman. It is mere camouflage towards foreign countries to say, "We are not increasnig duties against you; we are simply taking them off our own Dominions." It has exactly the same effect, except that it results in an immediate loss of revenue to the State. You really get back to this first principle, that you cannot give a preference to this Empire except at the expense of its foreign competitors, and whether you do it by reducing the Customs Duties for our own Dominions or increasing them on foreign goods, it makes no difference, for you at once get an enormous loss of revenue, and that is not what we want.
    But I am more concerned with the remarkable position in which we stand in regard to land values. The right hon. Gentleman did not give the Committee any indication at all as to the purposes for which he proposes to get this new valuation. There was no hint that when the valuation has been obtained there is going to be taxation based upon it; neither was there any indication of what is to be anticipated in that normal year to which we are all looking forward. But we are to have once more a valuation of land in this country. My submission to the right hon. Gentleman is that no general valuation of land is any good at all as a permanent guide to or basis of taxation or revenue. Land values fluctuate, like every other commodity. I want to know why, after the expenditure of £4,000,000 of money under the 1909 Budget, the whole of the valuations thus made are to be thrown aside and to be treated as no good either for land settlement or for revenue purposes. Yet we remember when the present Prime Minister described them as the new Domesday Book. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer remembers that phrase. Now this Domesday Book is to be kicked ignominiously out by the House and by the Treasury. I was looking at the discussion on the introduction of this land valuation, and I found

    411
    that the present Secretary for War said that once we had got that valuation set up we should have laid the foundations of a new England. That was ten years ago almost to this very day. What is the good of setting up another huge machinery, with thousands of officials, for the purpose of securing another valuation? Pending its report, there is, I take it, to be no proposal of a revenue character affecting the land. I cannot understand why it is that this great reform of 1909 is treated with such contempt, seeing that during the War we were told in this House, on scores of occasions, that the men engaged in the valuation were occupied on work of such national importance that they could not be spared to go and fight for their country. I cannot help thinking there has been some kind of accommodation arrived at between the various sections of the Coalition Ministry—some political accommodation—and that all this talk about a future land valuation which come to nothing at all. In fact, we shall be, this time next year, exactly where we are to-day, except that there may be two or three thousand more gentlemen drawing large salaries and preparing forms which are to be subsequently destroyed.
    I want to say a word or two about indemnities. I do not want to labour the point. We shall hear a good deal about it before long, but I cannot help reminding the right hon. Gentleman of the fact, of which no doubt he is well aware, that under the German policy, had Germany been successful in this War, she would have done what I submit with great respect he ought to do. She would at once have signed judgment against us for the whole cost of the War, and, having done so, she would have said, "We do not expect it at once; we will take long term bonds, and collect so much each year." I confess I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has not authorised the right hon. Gentleman, remembering what he told us a week or two ago, to come here and say that "while we do not bind ourselves to any particular amount we will, during the financial year, bring into the Treasury so much cash on account of the obligations of the German Government as a first instalment of the cost of the War." The right hon. Gentleman has put that cost at £5,000,000,000. Perhaps he knows. We at any rate do not. But we shall soon
    412
    know, and when we do know we shall know what to say about it. The right hon. Gentleman also said something about the necessity for enforcing strict economy in both national and personal affairs. But he did not say one word about any inquiry into the extravagant over-staffing of public Departments. There was not a word about strict economies there. I want to help him again with a suggestion which I made in this House eight or nine years ago. It is that the Public Accounts Committee, or some similar body, should have power to do something more than sit and hold inquests upon money which has been spent. They should have power to visit at their own free will every Government Department and ask every man they see there with his hands in his pocket, or whistling at the window, what his particular job is. Hon. Members will remember the story of the Government official who, complaining of the laziness of the British working man, declared that he had been watching a bricklayer on a building opposite for the last two hours and noticed that in that time he had not done a stroke of work. I think we ought to have some economies at any rate in the Government Departments.
    I also desire to refer to the Death Duties. There I respectfully adopt what the right hon. Gentleman said. The Death Duties are the most direct levy on capital you can have, apart from the Excess Profits Duty, and things of that kind. But look at the way in which the Death Duties are being administered to-day. By the manner in which they are being continually increased you are gradually swallowing up the capital of the country. These duties have exactly the same disadvantages as the Excess Profits Tax. You cannot always collect them. Look at the case of the Excess Profits Tax. There is a sum of £300,000,000 outstanding. I could cite cases where firms are being pressed for excess profits while at the very same time they are being almost driven out of their minds to find the wages for their workpeople. You are taking capital away by this means to satisfy the most wild ambitions of some hon. Members in this House, but I would ask those hon. Members to think seriously before tampering with capital. Capital, in its true sense, is not merely money; it is money plus brains, plus enterprise, plus energy and plus labour—all these things combined. If you

    413
    keep your excess profits even at the 40 per cent. point you are penalising labour and you are continuing the vicious system of paying more than you ought to do on your contracts and then taking a certain proportion out for the State. If you go on with the Death Duties in the same way you are putting an obligation on enterprise and energy which must result in unemployment, which will increase to an amazing degree. I re-echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), that no man has a moral right to make a profit out of the War. Tar to the uttermost farthing all excess profits directly attributable to war work and war contracts, but differentiate those things from legitimate enterprises carried on, often by great struggles and at great risk. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman heard the very strong appeal made by one of the preceding speakers, but I do hope he will reconsider his views on this question. So much for the general provisions of the Budget. There is, however, one other point. I was well aware that whatever else we should find in the Budget we should assuredly see those poor old hard-worked subjects—whisky and beer—trotted out for a further burden to be put on their already bent backs. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman justifies knocking 50 per cent. off the Excess Profits Duty on the ground that it was a purely war emergency measure and then increasing the duties already put as a War emergency measure on spirits and beer.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Because it was against Ireland.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: That would be a novel departure on the part of any country. But I want to ask the permission of the Committee to look at this matter for a few moments. The right hon. Gentleman has said to the brewers that the great difficulty is at an end. Surely the natural sequence would have been to let them brew as much beer as they like. He says, "You must not increase the price to the consumer, but I will give you special permission to improve the quality." Does anybody think that the brewer is going to avail himself of that provision when he is to have no chance of charging the customer more than for those horrible Government swipes which are administered to honest working men, and which are almost bad enough to raise a. revolution in the country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member overlooks the fact that there is to be no change in the existing prices, but if the brewers brew a better beer they will be able to charge a higher price than for the present beer.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I am sure it will be most gratifying to working men to know that they are to have the privilege of paying more for their beer.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to wilfully misrepresent me. The scale of prices is graduated according to the quality of the beer. If the brewer increases the average gravity and in consequence brews a better quality beer, for that better quality beer he will be able to charge what he can now charge for the same quality, no more and no less; but if they continue to brew what the hon. Member has called "swipes," they will not be able to charge more for it than they do now.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Surely the answer to that is simple. The war emergency has gone. Grain is plentiful. If you want to tamper further with beer and spirits at all it will not be for revenue purposes, because, if it were for such purposes, then the same remark would apply to every other commodity. What I complain of is the picking out for special treatment of this particular trade, which is one of the usual resorts of the conventional Chancellor of the Exchequer who is afraid to go outside the beaten track. There is a touch of D'Abernon about this policy. As a war emergency measure, you put restrictions on drink. You created the Liquor Control Board, which, of course, will go now that the war emergency has gone and the munitions difficulty is over. You made Lord D'Abernon the head of that Board. You not only put restrictions on drink, but you put them on racing as well. I took some active part in getting the restrictions on racing removed. I observed that Lord D'Abernon was most enthusiastic over keeping the restrictions on drink, yet I found him one of my chief lieutenants in removing the restrictions on racing. I found that he owned the favourite for the Derby, which would not have been run but for our joint efforts. I hope the same principle will be applied. Let us get rid of these restrictions altogether.
    May I now introduce to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a veritable

    415
    Eldorado of wealth, which might enable him to dispense with nearly all his other taxes. To begin with, I raise an old familiar theme of my own in the question of the dormant bank balances and unclaimed securities. For many years I have pressed that source of revenue upon successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. The development of the thing has been comical. The first time I questioned a Chancellor of the Exchequer about it, he said that he had made inquiries, and that there was nothing in it—the money was not worth troubling about. I asked of whom he had made those inquiries, and, with unconscious humour, he said, "From the bankers themselves." They told him that they did not handle any stolen money or any unclaimed securities. At a later stage another Chancellor of the Exchequer said that to carry out this proposal would mean dislocating the whole banking industry, and that, therefore, it was dangerous and difficult. Despite these replies, upon three different occasions I introduced a Bill into this House compelling bankers to disclose on a given date all the dormant accounts—that is, accounts on which there have been no operations for six years—and all the securities to which no claim had been made. I could give instance after instance showing the enormous character of this question, and I hope to be able to do that if my Bill is successful in coming on to-morrow week. Under the Ten Minutes Rule I have obtained the Second Reading of that Bill by large majorities of nearly four to one in other Parliaments. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be afraid of the banks. Under the present system it would appear as if the banker were the most sacrosanct man in the world. The moment he is announced everybody else has to clear out of the way. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer is led to believe by the permanent officials that unless he keeps the good will of the bankers he can do nothing. If the business of banking is so important, why does not the Government take over the Bank of England and do its own banking business, get all the money out of the public, and use it for the benefit of the State? Heaven knows that we have enough Inquiries and Commissions at present, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider setting up at least one more, which will call the bankers before it—the old private bankers, like Coutts's, who from the days of the French Revolu-
    416
    tion down to the days of this War have been ever accumulating wonderful sources of wealth, both in dormant accounts and securities; like Cox's, who through the deaths of officers and one thing and another are always reaping a rich harvest, and private banks of all kinds. I have gone into the matter fully, and I have innumerable instances in my possession, and I say quite seriously a man should not speak flippantly on a matter of this kind—that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will appoint a strong Committee, with power to take evidence on oath from the bankers of the United Kingdom, he will be startled by the millions which are in the hands of these bankers to which they have no moral claim and whose proper custodian is the Public Trustee.
    Another suggestion I would make is for a very simple tax which would realise an enormous revenue, and which would be collected automatically without hardship or unfairness—that is a tax on advertisements. In France they derive an enormous revenue from such a tax. There every advertisement, whether a man pays £10 or 6d. for it, bears the tax. It is paid if he puts a huge poster on a wall. I have had some experience of that. We do not mind if we have to put a shilling stamp on a poster. An advertisement tax nearly came off a few years ago, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened to the bill-posters and in the end their arguments prevailed. The advertisement tax in France produces an enormous revenue. Let it not be said any longer that they do these things better in France so far as this particular tax is concerned.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the tax to be on posters only, or on all advertisements?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: All.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In newspapers as well?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Yes, on every advertisement in a newspaper. When the account is paid it could include a stamp, as is done in the case of the Entertainments Tax. In the case of posters there would be an adhesive stamp indicating that the duty had been paid. Again, take the question of a stamp on receipts. We have an extraordinary way of doing things in this House. We have doubled the stamp on a cheque. When an honest citizen is going to pay his debts we say he must pay extra for it, but when a person is receiving

    417
    money we leave him entirely alone. The tax need not be a heavy one, say a 1d. up to £10, 1½d. up to £50 and 2d. up to £100. That would produce an enormous revenue, and nobody on earth would feel the pinch of it. Why not try it for twelve months? It is a source of revenue at which, for some reason or other, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer seem to shy. I again press it on the attention of my right hon. Friend. Another tax I have often suggested, which is a very simple one, is a tax on all share certificates. You tax debenture bonds and things of that kind. Why not put a small tax upon every share certificate? Every man who buys a share thinks he is going to make a fortune at the time he buys it, and will be quite ready to pay a sixpenny stamp, just as when a man buys a racehorse he thinks he has a Derby winner in his stable. At the present time a transfer of shares has to bear an ad valorem stamp. It sometimes happens that there are shares which people never intend to take up. The transaction is a mere gamble, and you escape the duty altogether. Let a stamp duty be put on every share transaction, not merely on the transfer, and then every man who gambles on the Stock Exchange will pay.
    Again, I would suggest a tax on betting and horse-racing. You may say that it is a wicked, terrible thing to encourage gambling, but do you not encourage drinking when you go on reaping a revenue from the sale of drink? Do you not encourage card-playing when you put a tax on playing-cards? When it comes to betting, however, it is a terrible thing. There is no civilised Government in Europe except our own which does not reap a great revenue from that kind of thing. In France from such a tax they pay huge sums to hospitals, for the encouragement of thoroughbred stockbreeding, and for the relief of the poor—in fact, in France they call it the right of the poor. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to shy at the bookmaker or at the man who goes to races. After all, racing is the sport of Kings. I never go to a great race meeting—which I hope to do with the permission of the Leader of the House next Derby Day—and see a million of men there all enjoying the national sport, without regretting that no Chancellor of the Exchequer seizes the opportunity of saying, "Here are a few hundred thousand pounds which on this day I can collect without the slightest trouble."
    418
    I would urge these proposals on the right hon. Gentleman with great respect. Do not let us go on the old beaten track for ever. Let us look out for new sources of revenue. We shall have to find them. I do not see the normal day coming quite so quickly as the right hon. Gentleman. I see no indemnities—I feel it in my bones. I see the necessity for maintaining an Army of Occupation for a very long time. I see other demands coming from the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. I see further shackles on capital, and a demand for a much bigger Budget than the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated. Let us avail ourselves, while there is time, of other sources of revenue. Above all, let us, if we can, expand our fiscal system, without injuring ourselves at home which we need not do. Let us take the opportunity of the Imperial spirit which this War has produced, which is the best guarantee for the safety and peace of the world for generations to come. Let us avail ourselves of that spirit and so revise our whole fiscal system and policy—throwing away Adam Smith, Stuart Mill. Ricardo, and all the rest of them—looking the position in the face, so as to bring about some form of Imperial solidarity and oneness of aim which shall make us feel that the lessons of the War have not been lost. If the right hon. Gentleman is bold enough, as he appears to be, to initiate that in a wide and generous spirit, he will be worthy of the great name he bears.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the very clear and able statement he made to us yesterday. For twenty-seven years I have had the honour and pleasure, of listening to Budget statements, but I never listened to a clearer and more businesslike one than we had yesterday. It has always been recognised that the present occasion is one, not so much for detailed discussion of the Budget and the proposed taxes as for a review of the general financial position of the country. It is especially necessary and desirable at the present time to take a broad view and to consider the position as a whole; therefore I will say very few words upon the proposed taxes. With regard to the tax on beer, no one will expect me to be very much worried because it is being increased. I am a little surprised, however, that it is thought possible to get so large an additional tax without increasing the price. I hope that may

    419
    prove to be so. With regard to the Excess Profits Tax, I have always felt that while the War was on some such tax was absolutely essential. Public feeling, practically the public conscience, demanded that special profits made out of the War should be made to contribute almost the whole amount, or as near as you could get to it, to the public revenue. Unfortunately, there are reactions from that. The worst is that the tax has led to an extraordinary waste of public money, to great extravagance, and to very great injury to the public in consequence of the extent to which it has raised prices. The sooner we can get rid of it the better.
    With regard to land values I may speak with considerable freedom, because when the land values proposals were first made in the form in which they appeared I ventured to criticise them strongly, and made use of one expression which our Unionist Friends embodied in a poster, and used in support of their candidates at the General Election. But I do feel, and I have always held, that we ought to have a valuation of the land of the country, and also that no tax was more just than taking for the country the unearned increment in the value of land. If that had been done fifty or seventy-five or one hundred years ago look at what an enormous revenue we should have had. I was never much disturbed because that valuation was going to cost a considerable sum of money, and for the time being was not going to yield money. It was a tax, of course, which was intended to yield when land increased in value, which takes years and takes time, but you must have a fundamental basis to begin with. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get rid of the Undeveloped Land Duty and that phase of it, and restrict himself simply to a levy upon the increase in the value of the land, if that simple process could be adopted, it ought to be done, and I should be very sorry indeed if a great effort were not made to complete that valuation upon which so much money has been spent. With regard to Death Duties, they are certainly justifiable, but in the long run the increase in money will not be very great. The higher you put those duties the more you encourage and almost drive people to distribute their property before death. Those who have not already done so will not be able to escape if they die during the next three years, but the inevitable tendency
    420
    is in that direction, and there will be more and more of it, and it will be very difficult to counteract.
    As to Imperial Preference, I am an old Free Trader, and although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor referred to this part of his Budget with very pardonable pride and liked it best, I like it least. I do not like Imperial Preference, but I do not feel that strictly and theoretically it is necessarily an interference with Free Trade or Free Trade principles as some people allege. There is no departure from Free Trade principles in levying different rates of duties on different countries, because we have done that all the way along with Free Trade Ministries in power. We have had the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, which means that we had different rates of duties. Interference with Free Trade principles is when it gives an advantage to firms or industries in this country, and we are going to do that with Scottish shale oil, benzol, and on spirits, by putting on an increased tax upon foreign spirits. But Imperial Preference itself is not necessarily a departure from Free Trade principles, but all the same I am not particularly fond of it. [Hon Members: "Why?"] Because we have already got instances which do tend to Protection. If we keep clear of that I do not mind, and if we keep clear of taxes on food I do not mind. One point with regard to Death Duties. I think the amount received from Death Duties ought to be devoted to the reduction of debt. Really it is a tax on capital, and a perfectly legitimate taking at a very suitable opportunity, of a considerable portion of an estate for the use of the nation. I think it will be wise, with the enormous debt we have, to devote that portion of the taxes to the reduction of the debt. I have grave doubts as to the ultimate reduction of that debt unless we do something of that kind. We may start out with a Sinking Fund and all the rest of it, but when one looks back at the amount of debt at the end of the great French War, and at what it was at the end of last century, one sees that we made uncommonly little headway in its reduction, and I am afraid it will be the same now, unless we set out to deal with it in a much more determined way than we have done in the past.
    I desire to say a few words about the general financial position of the country. We are passing through a very critical time. The War was critical, but in other directions this time after the War is

    421
    almost equally critical. We have had unparalleled expenditure. We have had ghastly extravagance and waste, and the result is we have got an enormous debt and must bear a heavy burden of taxation. Up to now, although there has been some relief, trade has been hamstrung and shackled by State control. We have had threats of strikes and industrial dislocation and enormous increases of wages and enormous increases in the cost of living. We have got great social unrest, and in the midst of all that we have to face the very difficult and delicate problem of the resumption of ordinary industry and the recovery of our trade abroad and social reconstruction and the repairing of the ravages of war, and we have to do that at this moment while our political leaders are engaged on most important world-wide problems in Paris. At times we have from some sections of the community propaganda of the wildest economic nonsense. Now there is the Budget to raise the money. The way in which money has been thrown away for the last five years was positively appalling, but, unfortunately, very little could be done to prevent it. We were struggling for our lives and for the liberty of the world, and, indeed, for the maintenance of civilisation. We were facing the greatest crisis in our history, and we had to create and equip and transport an enormous Army across the seas under the threat of overwhelming disaster. Under those circumstances close bargaining and carefully thought out business arrangements were certainly at the outset almost impossible. Men, equipment, and munitions had to be obtained and to be sent abroad with all speed, cost what it might to get them there, to save our nation, and to save the Empire. In those days waste and blunders were inevitable. It was so in every country in the world engaged in the War, and it has always been so in war. But after all there has not been accomplished in the world's history anything that will bear comparison with what this country of ours has achieved, and achieved in the most unselfish way. No doubt the waste has been awful, and here and there there has been appalling incompetence, but we have done the job, and when the nation was struggling for its life we could not give proper attention to cost.
    But now the tension is relieved, and the closest scrutiny should be given to it. We must first of all have Treasury control restored. Full control by the Treasury is
    422
    absolutely essential to national economy, and we must have control by the House of Commons restored. We have lost that sadly during this War, and beyond that we must have Cabinet control restored. We have had Departments acting on their own, and they have had a glorious time, but when they have a good time, it means endless expenditure. We have not had that Cabinet control of the Departments which is absolutely essential to efficient administration. We must have them all brought to heel. Unfortunately one result of the fearful expenditure we have had has been to create the impression that the resources of the nation are unlimited, and that there is a bottomless reservoir of wealth somewhere, while really the position is something like this: A man with a house and furniture sells the lot and sets to work to spend the money, and for a couple of months has a fine time, but nobody who knew the facts would come to the conclusion that he was well to do because he was spending freely. That is practically what we have been doing. We are going to work now as though we had a windfall instead of having to face disastrous expenditure. Some people seem to act as though we had discovered a great mountain of gold in the country, and that all you had got to do was to go with a pickaxe and shovel and bucket and fetch it away. We are to build this and construct the other thing and undertake something else, and pay higher wages, and work shorter hours, and levy higher taxes. Why it seems to me almost as though an epidemic of economic insanity had run through the country like the influenza.
    6.0 P. M.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an appeal for economy. It was his duty to do so. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us, as Chancellors of the Exchequer have told this House while I have been in it again and again, that the responsibility for expenditure rests largely on the House of Commons. In the first place it is on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, but he is powerless unless the House of Commons will stand by him. Directly you have got past this Budget you will have demands from all quarters to spend money on this that and the other. There is not a bit of use our preaching economy until the Government and the House of Commons itself determine to practice it. The Estimates before the War for the War

    423
    Office were £30,000,000, and they are now round about £450,000,000. I think we ought to know what is the view of the Government as to the future expenditure on the War Office and the Admiralty and the Air Service. I know the difficulty, but we ought to know what the view and aim of the Government is, for that of course would have a great influence upon the officials at the War Office. They ought to know what they are expected to do, and to cut their expenditure down, and they ought to be made to do so. Further, as soon as possible we ought to stop borrowing for current expenditure. Borrowing for current expenditure means inflation, and all the evils that follow from it. We must as speedily as possibly pay our way in current expenditure from year to year. The sooner we ascertain what we can pay, and still maintain our industrial and commercial output, the better, and when we have done so we ought ruthlessly to cut down expenditure accordingly. And for goodness sake shut up these Government offices; get rid of these staffs; clear the lot out! Unless a stringent line is taken they will batten upon the nation for the rest of their lives. It is awful. Clear them out by the shipload and have no bones about it. You will not get rid of them without. Do not argue with them. They have no end of information at their fingers' ends; they can put up a case, and where they are controlling trades, and some of them have benefited by it, they will back them up. Get rid of them. Make up your mind that you will do it.
    The object of the Budget is to provide a national revenue. It is all very well to set out schemes, but the possibility of getting this revenue means, Shall we have the national income upon which to levy these taxes? That is the important thing. The soundness of the Budget depends upon the maintenance of the national taxable income. If that is reduced you cannot get the taxes. We have been living, making profits and paying wages under artificial and abnormal conditions, which cannot possibly continue. We have been living on borrowed money. We must get back to normal conditions of trade and industry, and when we do, shall we have a big income which will yield this enormous revenue? Up to now a very large proportion of the output of the country has been taken by the Government and
    424
    paid for very largely out of borrowed money. A large proportion of the wages and profits which are so misleading people has come from the expenditure of that borrowed money. That is coming to an end. Then we have to replace that trade and to replace that employment, and to replace those profits, or we cannot pay the wages and the taxes. Will the trade, profits, and prices which will pay the heavy taxes and permit the increase of the wages continue? Large profits came early in the War from the enormous increase there was in the value of stocks. They rose enormously and made enormous profits. That is at an end. Another source was that all the manufacturing concerns of the nation were fully employed, many of them day and night up to the full—plant, machinery, and men, everyone in full employment. Of course you make larger profits when all are working at full swing and high pressure in that way. Can that be maintained out of the trade we shall have? It will not be unless we can receive and maintain and repeat orders from home and abroad. The possibility of getting and maintaining these orders will depend upon the price at which we can supply the goods in the markets of the world in competition with our various competitors in other countries. The competition of foreign countries in neutral markets will be very severe. We shall have, in my judgment, the United States and Japan competing in neutral markets to an extent they have never done before.
    What will be the effect of higher wages and reduced output on our power to compete? The idea seems to be in some quarters that the higher wages are to come out of profits and costs of management. Recent profits were based on temporary and artificial conditions. The profits will be less. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us it is estimated that on the old scale of duty the Excess Profits Tax would have yielded about £100,000,000 this year, instead of £300,000,000. If the profits are to be reduced in that way, where are the taxes to come from? A great deal is said about railways and mines. According to what we hear, the increases which have been given in both those great industries have practically swallowed up the profits. Where is the tax going to come from? We have a substantial Income Tax from owners of mines and from owners of railway stock and shares, but if the profits disappear where is the taxation to come

    425
    from? Will the men pay it out of the increased wages they are going to get? I remember very well in the old days when wages were lower, working men used to say, "If I had the income I would pay the tax." Will they? The income has gone up to the tax limit, and they are squealing about it like a cat with her tail in the crack of the door. They howl as soon as ever it gets to their level, and now they want the level lifted, so that they shall still be out. It must be remembered that profits have not only to provide taxes, but they have to provide for repairs, for maintenance, and for extensions of works and businesses which are necessary for the continuance of our industries. They have to provide for new undertakings. It was estimated in the past that something like £400,000,000 a year was devoted on the one hand to maintenance, repairs, and replacement of plant and buildings, and on the other to the building of houses and new premises, new factories, and extensions. At present prices it will require £700,000,000 or £800,000,000 a year, and that can only come out of profits. But in addition to that, we have five years of neglect to make up. For the past five years our premises, our manufacturing plant, our railways have not been maintained. The repairs and maintenance have not been done. That has got to be done if they are to be brought up to the necessary efficiency. That can only come out of the profits which are to be made, and the progress of invention and discovery shows that all undertakings require more capital than they used to do. Plant is more costly, machinery is more complicated and expensive, and it means that we shall want more capital; but where are you going to get the capital from for these new extensions if all the profits are to be swallowed up in other directions? You will not have it, and you will not have the tax revenue from these profits.
    Capital is essential. Where has it come from? It has come from saving, from thrift, from abstention from expenditure on the one hand, and, on the other, which is really another phase of the same thing, it has come from the accumulated profits of great undertakings, from men of special business capacity and ability, men of great foresight and courage who have built up big businesses. These great businesses and great profits are not made at the expense of the working people. They are not made by men who pay lower wages
    426
    than the rest, nor by men who pay less for what they purchase, or men who get higher prices for what they sell. Take men like Lord Leverhulme. Take a business like Harland and Wolff. Does Lord Leverhulme pay less wages than anyone else in a similar business? Does he treat men less well? Does he sell what he produces at higher prices? Not a bit of it. The fortune that he makes out of it is made by his business capacity, his organising skill, his courage, and his enterprise. It is our interest to encourage men like that. They are great national assets. And if we are to deprive them of their reward and of their inducement we shall either drive them from the country or they will not take the risks and they will not incur the responsibility of these great undertakings, and that would be a great disservice to the country and, greatest of all, to the working classes. It is customary for some of our friends to sneer at the laws of supply and demand. You may sneer at them as you like, but you cannot get rid of them, and if you ignore them you will not do it with impunity. We need capital and we need organising ability, and the way to make capital and organising ability cheap is to have a lot of it, and that means that you must save in order to provide the capital and educate our people in order to develop their faculties, and the way to lose capital and organising ability, or to drive them from the country, is to deprive them of a fair return and to overtax them. Both capital and ability can very easily be driven away.
    I want to say a word about what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) said yesterday. He had something to say about profiteering. His proposal for taxation was that persons with an income of less than £250 a year should only be taxed on luxuries, and that above £250 a year there should be an Income Tax commencing at 1d. in the £ and gradually graduated. I wish some of our good friends would really make an attempt to get at facts before they propound schemes and theories. If the hon. Member will only try to shape out an Income Tax commencing at a penny in the £ on incomes of £250 and grade it up and see how much he is going to get out of it, he will speedily discover that that will not supply a very big gap in the National Revenue. With regard to his £250 a year limit, we are pretty near to it now. If anyone has a wife and three children under sixteen he pays no tax until his income is £220 a year. If he has a wife

    427
    and five children, under sixteen he pays no Income Tax until his income is £270 a year. But a single man with, an income of £250 a year ought not to be entirely relieved of taxation. The hon. Member had a good deal to say about profiteering. What is profiteering? Is it getting as much as you can, because if it is, and that is what I assume it is, I should like to know who does not. The manufacturer does, the merchant does, and, my word, the workman does. When you begin to talk about profiteering then I say that those who live in glass Louses should not throw stones. Can you tell me of the working men of this country refusing to get as big a price as they could?
    Mr. SPENCER: Yes.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: Have they?
    Mr. SPENCER: Refused to take it.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: Well, that is novel. We want to clear our minds of cant. It is human nature to get all you can and it does not belong to one class. It is in all classes of life and it is no use humbugging ourselves about it.
    Mr. SPENCER: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that when the miners made application for a war wage the Government told them that if they asked double they would have to give it them. But the miners refrained from doing so, although if they had demanded much more they would have had it.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: No, they could not have got it. If profiteering be a sin, and I am not suggesting that it is, the working classes have to bear a full share of it. They have not done badly out of the War.
    An HON. MEMBER: Not as well as the profiteers?
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: Yes, and I am going to show that they have done better. Wages in this country have increased during the War, until they are now somewhere between 800 and 1,000 millions above what they were before the War. That is the position. The wages are pretty well doubled. I am not suggesting that they ought not to have been doubled. That is not my point. I am glad that they have been increased, and I hope they will be maintained. It is a great boon and blessing to the community to have the masses of our people better paid. The
    428
    cost of everything has doubled, and we are worse off unless our income is doubled. The vast mass of the people are notoriously better off than they were before. Therefore their incomes must have increased more than the cost of living has increased. There is any amount of evidence of the prosperity of the working people of this country. Look in any direction, and you will find it. Look at the expenditure on liquor and tobacco.
    Mr. A. DAVIES: Profiteering!
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: I am not talking about profiteering; I am talking about the expenditure—about those who have the money to pay with. Three hundred millions were spent last year, thrown away by all classes of the community, on liquor and tobacco—two hundred millions of it by the working classes. During the War 1,200 millions have been spent by this country on liquor and tobacco, and 800 millions of it by the working people. And then we have appeals for economy!
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Chairman of Committees is now allowing Members of Parliament to smoke?
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: Only another evidence of what seems to me folly. The income and expenditure of every class of the community has not increased in the same proportion. The incomes of the remainder of the population other than the working classes have not doubled during the War. Let us take the Income Tax assessment. The figures I have are not up to date, but they are the latest. What do they show? They show that the amount assessable to Income Tax in 1913–14, before the War, was £951,000,000. In 1916–17, the last year of which we have the figures, it was £1,373,000,000, an increase of £422,000,000. That included the incomes of those between £130 and £160 a year. The limit was £160 before the War, but that was reduced to £130, which brought in a large number of people, and they are included in this Return. The taxation of the farmers has been trebled and that is included in these figures. The figures also include those working people and people of that class who were not up to £160 before but are now above that amount. Therefore the £422,000,000 does not represent the increase to the old Income Tax payers. I doubt whether the increases which the old Income Tax payers have got is more than £200,000,000 or

    429
    £250,000,000 and that is after deducting Excess Profits Duty. That means that the income of other classes than the working classes has only increased by about 25 per cent., while the working class income has pretty well doubled. The Super-tax figures confirm this. Before the War the Super-tax figures reported the incomes of those with £3,000 a year and upwards. Before the War the amount of Income assessed to Super-tax was £238,000,000. Last year it was estimated at £280,000,000, an increase of only £42,000,000 on £238,000,000.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The taxable minimum has been brought down.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: I am referring to the figures based on the reduced minimum, those over the £3,000 limit. Their total income has only gone up from £238,000,000 to £280,000,000. The working class income has doubled, but the people above the £8,000 a year income have not got this advantage.
    Mr. A. DAVIES: I should think not.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: These are the official figures. The bulk of the increased profit of this country has gone to the working people and to the middle classes, the manufacturers and the traders. Many other people have been badly hit. People with fixed incomes have got nothing whatever. They have had to face the increased cost of living without getting any advantage. Let me take the case of a judge, simply because the income of a judge is public property. A successful lawyer before the War accepted an appointment as a judge, in the expectation that he would have a salary of £5,000 a year. The Income Tax upon that salary before the War was 1s. or 1s. 2d. in the pound, leaving him with £4,750 or £4,700 a year. Where is he to-day? His Income Tax and his Super-tax on £5,000 a year amounts to £l,787 10s., leaving him with an income not of £4,750, but of £3,212. If the purchasing power of that be considered, and if it has only been reduced by one-third, he has got to-day an income equivalent to £2,150 a year, as compared with £4,700 before the War. A very heavy burden indeed! That is an illustration of the case of tens of thousands of people, not as to amount, but in the character of their income, throughout the country. They have suffered very heavily. There is another phase of this question. The latest figures we have in detail are for 1917–18. Of all the national revenue, 18 per cent.
    430
    was from indirect taxation and 82 per cent. from direct taxation. Broadly speaking, but not entirely, the indirect taxation is the taxation that falls upon the masses of the people, while the direct taxation falls on them to a very small extent, The indirect taxation was only 18 per cent. of the whole. If you deduct from the indirect taxation the taxation of liquor and tobacco, which are luxuries at the best—at any rate, they are voluntary taxes. I do not pay either. I escape the lot, and other people could do the same—you will find that the balance paid by the working classes is more than counterbalanced by the subsidy on bread. In other words, the subsidy on bread more than counterbalances the whole of the indirect taxation of the masses other than that which is derived from liquor and tobacco. What does that mean? It means that the working-man who does not pay Income Tax does not pay any taxation at all, because the whole of his indirect taxation is balanced by the subsidy on bread. Then what is the use of the right hon. Member for West Fife talking about the heavy burden of indirect taxation on working people? At the present time they really do not pay any except on drink and tobacco, which they would be better without.
    There is no country in the world that in peace-time has had its working people so little taxed as this country, and in war-time it is almost incredible that it should have been possible to do it. One result of the War has been a great redistribution of wealth. It is a redistribution that you could not in ordinary circumstances have brought about in a couple of generations. The holders of invested capital have suffered very heavily indeed, while the working people have gained enormously. That being so, I do suggest that it is a little hard and a little unjust that those who have lost so much should be denounced and attacked by those who have gained so much.
    Mr. SWAN: Cheerio!
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: Some in other classes of the community than the working classes have made great profits, but they are few in number compared with the great multitude. Take the large companies and large undertakings. Some have paid very big Excess Profits Duty. The remaining profit has not gone to any one individual. It has been distributed amongst large bodies of shareholders, many of

    431
    them small people, and it does not increase their incomes in anything like a proportion corresponding to the increase of wages. Out of that they have had to bear the very heavy cost of living. I quite agree that in special cases under our economic system the reward of success is too great and the penalty of failure is too severe. We must encourage enterprise, but our aim should be to give to all a fair share of the result of joint effort. No service to the country and no exceptional capacity and ability justifies families for generations and centuries living on the result of that service without working. Unless you allow great business geniuses to get the reward of their effort you will not have it, but there is no reason why their successors from the time of William the Conqueror up to now should be living without working. That, in my judgment, is one great justification for the Death Duties, gradually taking it back again and bringing it to the community. The great transfer of wealth to which I have referred and the increase of wages will be an enormous blessing to this country if it can be maintained, and the real problem to which, I venture to suggest to my working-class friends, they should devote themselves in the maintenance of the conditions which will allow these wages to be paid. It would be a great boon to the whole community if they can be. There is no use in killing the goose that lays the golden egg. They can only be paid out of four sources—from one, or some, or all of them—(1) by a lower return on capital, (2) by smaller profits, (3) higher prices, and (4) increased production. If you make the return on capital below the market value, it will go away. Then commercial and organising capacity will leave the country if you do not give to business ability the reward which it can obtain elsewhere. It will go, or, if it remains here, it will not take the risk and responsibility. Those are two sources. The third is high prices. High prices are equivalent to a reduction in wages, and high prices curtail trade and tend to cause unemployment.
    Colonel THORNE: Do they curtail trade in America?
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: The real solution of the problem is increased output. That does not mean increased hard work. Any-
    432
    body who knows the cotton trade of Lancashire and compares the conditions eighty years ago and the output per person in the mills then with what it is to-day will find that the output has been enormously increased, that the wages of the people have been increased, and that everybody has been benefited as a result. So it is throughout the world. The ideal condition is the maximum reward for labour that is consistent with the return on capital that will keep it here and a sufficient reward for organising ability. A diminished output per man in any industry means a decline in trade and a loss in employment. I was talking with one of the leading men from the United States only the other day about this question of output, and the restriction of output, and the ghastly fallacy that you can create employment by restricting output. He said it took them thirty years in America to kill that fallacy. But they have killed it, and none of the workmen in America will have any of that nonsense in their minds that you are going to make a country more prosperous by producing less. They have got rid of that. That is the great secret of success of America, and it will make America, our dangerous competitor in future unless we adopt a similar policy.
    I do not know whether hon. Members have read one of the most interesting Government publications that was ever issued, the final Report on the Census production. I am afraid it has not been read as it should be. There is more information on economic questions in that volume than in any other volume that was ever issued. That volume showed, among other things, that in 1907 the value of the net output of the various industries of this country, and the net output was shown, by taking the value of the raw materials that went into the works, and the value of the finished article that came out, so that you can see the value that was added by the work of the whole of the organisation. The net value of the output in the cotton trade was £79 per person employed. In the woollen trade it was £70; in the hosiery trade, £61; boot and shoe-making, £71; printing and bookbinding, £88; iron and steel works and mills and foundries, £115; leather tanning trade, £117; paper-making, £111. The amount increased according to the cost or value of the plant employed. What had to come out of that output of £70 or £80 per individual—wages, salaries, rent, rates, taxes, depreciation, maintenance, all the

    433
    working expenses, return on capital and profit. It is perfectly clear on the basis of those figures that you cannot have the bigger payments we desire to make unless you have a large increase in the output.
    Another great need of the moment is security and reasonable certainty about trade. I would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is going to be the trade policy of the Government What is it that is hanging up trade in all directions at the present time—uncertainty. [An Hon. Member: "The Blockade!"] It is not the Blockade; it is uncertainty. People will not give their orders for this, that, and the other because they do not know what prices are going to be. They will not give their orders now even if they can get a price quoted, because they do not know but that they may be paying a price very much higher than they may have to pay in a few months' time. On the other hand it is with extreme difficulty that you can get manufacturers and others to quote definite prices owing to the uncertainty of the trade. Take the building trade: Who is going to propose building at the present time? Who will put up buildings for you at the present time? Until you can get down to something like bedrock you will never get the certainty which we desire. What is going to be the Government trade policy? Until we know that we are in very great uncertainty. We also want stability. Strikes and labour unrest paralyse trade and create unemployment. Our commercial, financial, and industrial structure is built up on credit, and credit is a very tender and sensitive plant, and political, civil, and industrial security is vital to it. I say to the Government, Get all the shackles off trade. Get rid of all this control and these offices. Set an example of economy yourselves. Get rid of all these war staffs. Hasten a return to normal conditions, so that traders may know where they are. Then we may get down on something like a firm basis; and if we do that, then for myself I feel that if we face the economic, industrial, and financial problems that are before us with courage, patience, and mutual consideration, we have little to fear.
    Mr. ARNOLD: Whatever else is disputable with regard to the Budget it will be agreed in all quarters that the country is faced with a most serious financial problem. In my opinion much bolder measures are needed to grapple with the
    434
    problem than those which have been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish to urge in the first place that the increase of taxation proposed in the Budget is insufficient, and in the second place that it will be necessary to meet a large part of the War liabilities by means of taxation of capital—that is to say, by a levy on capital rather than by taxation of income. I will discuss these two problems in order First, I maintain that the increased taxation proposed in this Budget is insufficient. A review of the position will show that the permanent revenue to be obtained from the Budget falls short of the requirements of sound finance by £134,000,000 a year, and therefore a further £134,000,000 of taxation ought to be imposed. We have not, during the War, been raising sufficient permanent revenue to meet the normal peace expenditure of the country when the War was over. Certainly the principle upon which we ought to proceed now is to raise this year by taxation such an amount of permanent revenue as will meet the estimated peace expenditure of the country in a normal year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in effect agreed to this principle yesterday and gave certain calculations accordingly, but I challenge his figures and conclusions and will give my reasons for doing so.
    The expenditure of the current year is £1,434,000,000, but this he pointed out includes many exceptional items. When the transition period from war to peace is ended I estimate that the peace expenditure of the country in a normal year will not be less than £900,000,000—as compared with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate of £766,000,000—and it may be considerably more than £900,000,000, especially as wages of Government employés are such an important element in national expenditure, and wages are much higher than in pre-war days, and they are never likely, I hope, to go back. However, I will take it at the sum of £900,000,000. I do not propose to go in great detail through all the calculations showing how the estimate I have given of £900,000,000 is arrived at, but in short this amount for normal peace expenditure is composed of four main items. First, £270,000,000 for Civil Service and Revenue Departments Estimates, as against £495,000,000 for those Estimates in this Budget. An examination of the figures will show that, taking out exceptional items with a very liberal hand, there seems no prospect of the sum of

    435
    £495,000,000 estimated for this year being reduced below £270,000,000 for normal peace expenditure. To bring down the figures as low as £270,000,000 I have eliminated altogether the railway subsidy of £60,000,000, the bread subsidy of £50,000,000, as the right hon. Gentleman did yesterday, and many other items, some of which will, as a matter of fact, probably continue in some form for several years. When I further mention that four items alone in the Civil Service and Revenue Departments Estimates—namely, war pensions, old age pensions, education, and the Post Office—cost well over £170,000,000, and that the cost of all the other Government Departments has gone up enormously, I think it will be realised that the figure I have given of £270,000,000 is a moderate estimate.
    Secondly, I estimate £150,000,000 for the Army, Navy, and Air Force Services, against a gross expenditure of £655,000,000 this year. Personally, I believe that the amount of £150,000,000 will prove to be less than the combined sum which is actually spent on these three Services in a normal year after peace, particularly in view of the higher pay for the men as compared with pre-war days—and this part of the expenditure I welcome. I think, then, that £150,000,000 will prove to be less than the sum which is spent. At the same time, I wish to say that, in my opinion, this amount should be much more than sufficient for expenditure on armaments. However, I am not dealing with what I myself want or what I consider necessary, but I am dealing on a moderate basis with what I think is likely to happen. If the figure should prove to be £110,000,000, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, or prove to be less than that, I shall be delighted, as it will mean that more money will be available for social reform, and, as I shall say in a moment, this will be very much needed.
    The third main item is £400,000,000 for interest on the National Debt, taking the Debt as £8,000,000,000; I think it will amount to at least £8,000,000,000 before borrowings have ceased, and, indeed, in view of the very heavy expenditure during the next two or three years, the Debt will probably considerably exceed £8,000,000,000 after taking to credit sales from stock of goods and other items referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. This Debt of £8,000,000,000 will, it is true, include a large sum not far short of
    436
    £2,000,000,000 for advances to the Allies and Dominions. It is to be hoped that as years go on the interest on these advances will cease to be a charge on the British taxpayers and that indeed much, if not all, of the capital will be repaid.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member forgive me if I interrupt him to say that the Dominions have paid and are paying interest on that Debt. I regret that I did not make that clear yesterday, and I am glad the hon. Member has given me the opportunity of saying it to-day.
    Mr. ARNOLD: I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a matter of fact I hoped that the Dominions were paying that, and in private discussion I said I thought they were paying it or would very soon do so. But all countries have suffered from the War, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out last year, it would be sanguine to expect payment even on interest alone on the whole amount from both Dominions and Allies until, at any rate, a considerable period has been allowed to elapse for recuperation after the War is over. In all the circumstances I think it is best to adopt the course suggested by a late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is to treat, at any rate for a time, all sums which may be received from the Allies and Dominions, either by way of interest or of capital, as a sinking fund for the debt. If this plan is followed it is not necessary in building up the future Peace Budget actually to allow for both sinking fund and interest, but for interest only on the debt of £8,000,000,000. The average rate of interest may be taken as 5 per cent., and 5 per cent. on £8,000,000,000 is £400,000,000.
    The fourth item is £80,000,000, and is a margin for other expenditure of many kinds which will have to be met, and particularly for various measures of social reform. With almost criminal optimism the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday practically left out of account all these items in his estimate of future expenditure. In effect he has allowed little or nothing for the big programme of social reform which his Government promised the country. The social reform measures will include the charge against the National Exchequer for the housing scheme, which will be a very big item; further expenditure on education to which the country is committed under the Act of last year, and this also will be a big

    437
    item; the cost of the Ministry of Health, including the Grants in aid of rates which will have to be made under the Ministry of Health; increase of Old Age Pensions, and the cost of other proposals of the Joint Industrial Conference; and the Government is practically committed to giving effect to these proposals. A big expenditure on these and many other measures of social reform will be urgently demanded and very much needed, and practically every Member of the House is committed to a very large expenditure on social reform. Money, too, will be required for the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Supply, many reconstruction schemes, and also, I am afraid, for certain subsidies and compensations for which the Coalition Government has unfortunately made itself liable. Personally, I do not consider that the sum of £80,000,000 will be nearly sufficient for all these purposes, including the large programme of social reform which must be carried out. However, let me say again, that I am not dealing with what I want, but with what I think is likely to be done, and unless there is a levy on capital I do not think that more than, and probably not so much as, £80,000,000 will be forthcoming for all these objects.
    If we add together these four main items of expenditure which I have given, namely, £270,000,000 for the Civil Service Estimates, £150,000,000 for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, £400,000,000 for interest on the Debt, and £80,000,000 as a margin for other expenditure, we reach a total expenditure for a normal peac year of £900,000,000. These estimates, of course, may be disputed. My reply is that year by year I have put forward estimates which have been criticised from the Treasury Bench as too high, yet in each succeeding year my figures have proved to be much below the mark, and the Treasury Estimates have been simply ridiculous. For instance, last year the then Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward an Estimate for normal peace expenditure of only £650,000,000. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts the figure at £766,000,000—that is an error of £116,000,000. This shows how utterly unreliable, not to say careless, these Treasury Estimates are I have a great respect for the officials of the Treasury. They are very good at estimating revenue, but they seem to be utterly incapable of estimating what future expenditure will
    438
    be. They do not seem to have beyond the merest inkling as to what the commitments of the Government are, and what their pledges are. If they would get a list of Government pledges they would see that there does not seem to be the smallest chance of our normal peace expenditure being less than £900,000,000. I believe that I am myself underestimating again, and that the normal peace expenditure will considerably exceed £900,000,000; however, I will work on the figure of £900,000,000 Against this the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates that the permanent revenue to be obtained on the basis of the present Budget will in a full year amount to £766,000,000. If, then, the permanent or normal peace revenue is £766,000,000, and the normal peace expenditure is £900,000,000, as I have estimated, there will be a deficiency of £134,000,000, and that is the basis of the proposition I set out to establish, that further taxation of £134,000,000 ought to be imposed. In the main this will have to come from increasing the Income Tax. If the whole £134,000,000 were obtained from the Income Tax, the general rate of the Income Tax would have to be raised to nearly 9s. in the £. In any event, it seems impossible for the country to avoid an Income Tax at a general rate of 8s. in the £ apart from Super-tax. And even so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to find nearly £50,000,000 a year from other taxes. This will be a task of extraordinary difficulty, especially as indirect taxation cannot, in my view, justly be increased on balance at all.
    The conclusion to which we are driven then is that we shall be faced with Income Tax at a general rate of 8s. in the £apart from Super-tax and with very heavy other taxes. To tinker with the problem, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in this Budget, is merely to postpone the evil day. All this is quite apart from the question of whether the revenue is being raised on the best and most equitable basis as between the various sections of the community. I hold strongly, and have urged again and again, that the tea and sugar duties are much too high. These duties are inequitable and economically unsound, both in time of war and in time of peace. They are pressing very heavily on those persons who are below the level of subsistence, and the number of these persons is very much larger than is commonly supposed. If this matter were put right—

    439
    indeed, I want to see these duties abolished altogether—then it would be necessary to make good the deficiency from other sources, again mainly from the Income Tax. Therefore the level of the Income Tax would be higher even than the figure I have indicated.
    I wish to register my protest against the Preference Duties introduced in this Budget. I am totally opposed to these duties. They are economically unsound, and there are other grave objections in principle to them. However, I will not discuss these matters now, because we are to-day concerned with the raising of revenue. I conclude this part of my remarks by repeating that a review of the financial position of the country shows that when the transition period from war to peace is ended we shall be faced with a National Debt of at least £8,000,000,000, and we shall be obliged to raise annually by taxation the sum of £900,000,000. This is a most serious prospect. I do not believe that it is possible to go on raising, year by year, on any basis which is equitable and economically sound, the enormous sum of £900,000,000 by taxation. Industry will be strangled, the people will be ground down by oppressive taxation, and the tax system will, in my opinion, break down in the course of a few years. I believe, therefore, that it will be necessary to reduce the annual expenditure of £900,000,000 by clearing off quickly a big portion of the War Debt, thus greatly easing the annual national burden by reducing the charge for interest on the War Debt.
    7.0 P.M.
    In my opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be compelled sooner or later to meet a large part of the war liabilities by means of taxation of capital—that is, by a levy on capital—rather than by taxation of income. I urge that £6,000,000,000 of the debt should be cleared off by a levy on capital. The effect of this operation would be to reduce the charge for interest on the debt by £300,000,000 a year, and there would also be a saving of about £45,000,000 a year on Sinking Fund account. Thus the national expenditure would, in effect, be reduced from £900,000,000 to £555,000,000, and after the levy there could be a large reduction in the amount of taxation to be raised, and the general rate of the Income Tax could be reduced from 8s. in the £ to less than 3s. in the £. Last year I ventured to lay before the House of Commons, as completely as I could in one speech, a scheme
    440
    for a levy on capital. It would take too long now to give that scheme in great detail, but I wish to-day briefly to outline the machinery for the operation, and then to deal with some of the objections against the scheme and compare, in certain respects, a capital levy for dealing with the War Debt with the alternative of what I may call the high Income Tax scheme. My suggestion is that the National Debt should be reduced from £8,000,000,000 to £2,000,000,000 by a levy on capital. The Debt might remain at £2,000,000,000, which would not be an insupportable burden, especially with the hope that the vast sum, not far short of £2,000,000,000, advanced to the Allies and Dominions will be repaid, at any rate in part, sooner or later. The levy would be made and paid after the manner of the Death Duties, and I wish to make it perfectly clear that the levy would be on individuals; it would not be on limited companies. The reason for this is that the share capital of limited companies is, of course, all owned by individuals, and it is in practice much simpler to make a levy on the capital, including stocks and shares, owned by individuals, because the rate for the levy will be a graduated one and will vary according to the amount of the individual fortunes. Persons worth less than £1,000 will be exempt; those worth between £1,000 and £5,000 will be taxed lightly, and the scale will rise by degrees right up to the millionaire; big fortunes will be taxed very heavily. This scheme is not confiscation and it is not repudiation. It is merely an alternative method of meeting a liability which has to be met anyhow, and which ought to be met by the wealthier classes of the country. It is most important always to bear in mind that, practically speaking, the interest on the War debt is being paid, and can only be paid, out of taxation. The interest on the War debt, therefore, does not really represent real income to the country. The War Loans could not, of course, be spent productively and therefore there are, practically speaking, no revenue producing assets for the money which was subscribed to the War Loans. Much the major portion of the War debt is held by the Income Tax-paying classes, and the interest is mainly being paid through the Income Tax; and unless there is a capital levy this process will have to go on for the next thirty or forty years. That is to say, that for a long period of years, interest

    441
    and also sinking fund will have, in effect, to be paid out of taxation. Surely, then, it would be better largely to liquidate the debt; that is to write it down, just as all sound commercial concerns would write down a similar asset, and one result of the operation would be a large reduction in the rate of Income Tax. There is no more confiscation about a tax on capital than a tax on income or a tax on sugar. Unless there is a levy on capital, nearly one half, and in the case of those liable for Super-tax, more than one half, of the income of the wealthier classes will be confiscated, if you choose to use language of that sort. The truth is that a levy on capital merely does quickly what other taxation will do slowly. In a word, a levy on capital means paying off war debt by a sinking fund in a very short period, rather than paying off war debt by a sinking fund out of other taxation over a very long period.
    Before proceeding further, I would mention that the principle of a levy on capital has received the qualified approval of the Leader of the House. I will quote an extract from the official report of his reply to a deputation from the Trade Union Congress, which was issued on 26th December, 1917. He had been discussing the future position of the country and after pointing out that the taxation caused by the War debt would mean a burden upon industry, he used the words:
    "That burden is one of the inevitable consequences of the War, and all we can do is to try to make it tell as little as possible on the life of the country.
    Suppose you take this view—and I am inclined to take it myself—that we ought to aim at making this burden one which will rest practically on the wealth that has been created, and is in existence at the time the War comes to end, not merely that it should not fall on the wage-earning classes or on the people with small means with which to meet it, but that it should, so far as is possible, beborne by the wealth that exists at the time, so that it would not be there as a handicap on the creation of new wealth after the War. I think that is what we have to aim at. And how is that to come?
    The question of whether or not there should be conscription of wealth, then, is entirely a matter of expediency, and I think it is a matter which concerns mainly, not the working classes, but the people who have money. In my opinion it is simply a question of whether it will pay them best and pay the country best, to have a general capital levy and reduce the National Debt as far as you can, or have it continued for fifty years as a constant burden of taxation. Perhaps I have not thought enough about this to justify me in saying it, but my own feeling is that it would be better, both for the wealthy classes and for the country, to have this levy of capital and reduce the burden of the National Debt."
    442
    These words sum up, in a few sentences, the precise case I am trying to put before the Committee, and I would like to ask hon. Members to bear very carefuuly in mind this statement of the Leader of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he condemned a capital levy yesterday, apparently did not know that his predecessor—the Leader of the House—had gone a very long distance in favouring the principle. However, I leave these two right hon. Gentlemen to settle their differences. Many objections have been and will be urged against a levy on capital. I am quite aware of that, and I am going to deal with the chief of them. But the critics of a capital levy are utterly misleading, not to say unfair, in their methods. They point to all the difficulties in the way of a levy and generally ignore altogether the much greater difficulties, in my opinion, of the very high Income Tax, and other taxation, which will be necessary. That was really the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday: he will not face facts. But facts must be faced, and it is necessary to realise that there is no easy way of dealing with this great problem. Either course will be difficult. My case is that the balance of net advantage lies with a capital levy. As a matter of sound economics I think that is clearly so, because the great bulk of the war debt will be wiped off from existing capital instead of being a charge for many years to come on future earnings.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the levy be in cash or in kind?
    Mr. ARNOLD: I am coming on to that, but this is a big subject. I am satisfied that the very high Income Tax will prove to be an inequitable and most precarious fiscal instalment. Many evasions of Income Tax take place now and cannot be stopped, and with the high rate of Income Tax which will be necessary evasions will undoubtedly increase.
    I will now proceed to deal with some of the objections to a Capital Levy, and for a fuller argument I would venture to refer hon. Members to a speech which I delivered in the House, on the Budget Debate, last year. I have diffidence in doing this, but I am anxious to save time, and in that speech I dealt pretty fully with many of the problems connected with a capital levy, including that of valuation, the difficulties of which are much exaggerated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dwelt

    443
    yesterday on the insufficiency of the staff of the Inland Revenue for the purpose of valuation. There does not appear to be any difficulty in increasing the staff of other Government Departments, and, as a Capital Levy will be found to be the only means of really meeting the situation, the necessarystaff—and it will only be temporary—for the valuation must be provided. I would point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer practically indicated yesterday that the land is to be valued, anyhow. Further, three or four years in all would be allowed for the payment of the levy, and therefore three or four years for the valuation. Also, by the plan I outlined last year, the whole process of valuation would be very much simplified. The first objection I will touch on to-day is the contention that a levy on capital would absorb and use up liquid capital just at the time when it is wanted most—that is, during the period of reconstruction following the War. The reply to this objection is a very short one: It is not true. It is most important to realise that a Capital Levy does not, on balance, absorb or use up liquid capital at all. I would respectfully ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would pay attention to this point, because, if I may say so with respect, he has not quite followed this aspect of the Capital Levy.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have been following the whole of his speech with interest, if he will allow me to say so. At the moment my colleague had asked me a question which I was obliged to answer.
    Mr. ARNOLD: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the attention which he has evidently been paying. I do not suggest that he was not following me, but just at this particular point I wanted to call attention to the fact that a levy on capital does not, on balance, absorb or use up liquid capital at all. After all, what is a capital levy for? It is for the purpose of paying off War Stock, and, in so far as the levy is paid in cash—and by cash, I mean, of course, not only gold and notes, but also cheques, and so forth—the Government does not keep the cash, but it will be used by the Government to pay off holders of War Stock. In a word, the total amount of cash taken by the Government from persons under a capital levy will be exactly equal to the total amount of cash paid by the Government to other persons—that is, to holders of War Stock. There-
    444
    fore, on balance, the total amount of liquid capital available in the country will not be altered or diminished 1d. piece by the operation. I ought, however, to say that the amount of the levy which would be paid in cash would be very small. I will deal with this point in the next objection, and it is an objection which, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday. Practically, what he says comes to this, that a Capital Levy could not be paid because of the difficulties of realisation; that securities, and so forth, would be thrown on the market all at once, when there were few buyers about, and that prices would collapse. In point of fact, by certain methods, which I will hastily outline, the whole of the levy could be met or paid with no realisation of securities or selling of property at all.
    The first of these methods is by payment direct in war stock. War stock of every kind—5 per cent. War Loan, National War Bonds, Treasury Bills, and so forth—could be handed over to the Government in payment of the levy, and therefore no realisation would be involved. This, of course, does not mean that war stock holders would be in a worse position than anybody else. As a matter of fact, they would be in a better position. All persons—with certain small exceptions—worth more than £1,000, would have to pay the levy on a graduated scale. It would not be compulsory for war stock-holders to pay in war stock; but it would be a very convenient way of paying the levy, and would be largely chosen, because some advantage in price would be given to those who paid in war stock. The second method of paying the levy without realising securities or selling property is by the exchange system. Here, again, I would like to ask for the special attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I think it is quite clear, from what he said yesterday, that this part of the machinery for a levy on capital has not yet received his close attention. Under this exchange system the Treasury would issue a long list of good securities, which would be accepted in payment of the levy, at certain fixed quotations. This list would be on the plan of the lists which have been issued by the Treasury during the War, for the purpose of mobilising American and foreign securities. All the securities in the list could be handed over to the Government in payment of the levy. The Treasury, and the Government, however, would not need

    445
    to realise the securities or put them on the market. The Treasury would proceed to exchange these securities with war stock-holders under voluntary and agreed arrangements, some slight advantage in price being given to war stockholders as an inducement to make the exchange. There would be no compulsion about these exchanges; they would be perfectly voluntary. But many companies and individuals would be only too glad to make them, especially in view of the fact that the rate of interest at present yielded by high-class securities is almost certain to go down as years go on, and, therefore, good, first-classe securities with fixed interest, which are irredeemable, are better, as a permanent holding, than war stock, for war stock is redeemable. By this exchange system, a very large amount of the debt of the country would be dealt with and cancelled.
    The third method of meeting the levy wthout the necessity of realising securities or selling property is by credit facilities, or, alternatively, by payments out of income over a long period of years. Credit facilities would, in particular, be given to owners of land and real property, and to those persons who have money locked up in their business, as, for instance, in a factory, fixed plant, carrying stocks of goods, and so on. These credit facilities would, in the main, be given through the banks, under special regulations laid down by the Government; whereby the borrowers would be protected, and the banks would be guaranteed by the Government against loss—though, as a matter of fact, any loss there could be would only be infinitesimal. This problem of the man who has his money locked up in his business is the one which looms largest in the minds of business men in regard to a capital levy and causes them most doubt and anxiety. It is argued that many men who have their money locked up in their business would—rightly or wrongly, and no matter under what guarantee—object to putting themselves in the hands of a bank, or to giving any form of security to a bank. If may be replied that the arrangement proposed would be a special one, made with the banks by the Government, and it would ensure that there would be no harassing by the banks. Nevertheless, account has to be taken of prejudice. Some business men would object, on any terms, to getting credit to any material extent from a bank in order to meet the levy. In such cases,
    446
    the alternative is clear. Such persons would be allowed to pay the levy out of income by instalments, over a long period of years. The whole problem of men who have their capital locked up in their businesses is really a much simpler one than is commonly supposed, and is also a much smaller one than is commonly supposed.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What security does the hon. Gentleman propose to get for allowing particular taxpayers to defer their liability to pay?
    Mr. ARNOLD: That was dealt with last year in my speech. A Commission would be set up to adjudicate on these points. We had military tribunals during the War for military purposes, and we could now have tribunals to adjudicate in certain cases as to the most proper way of paying this levy.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was not my question. It was not who should adjudicate as to whether a man should be allowed to pay one way or the other, but when you allow him to escape the immediate levy, and to convert it into an annual tax, what security would you take that the tax should be paid?
    Mr. ARNOLD: The reply to that is very simple. It would be done under the law of the land. So long as the man continued to earn an income, he would be obliged to pay out of income.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What is to prevent him from going bankrupt?
    Mr. ARNOLD: You cannot under any scheme provide for every case, but such eases would be very exceptional. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest the whole scheme should be vitiated because a very small number of people in private business might go bankrupt. That could be provided for by regulations laid down in an Act of Parliament, and there would be just as much security as you would get under the Income Tax scheme. The levy, as I say, would have to be met by individuals—not by limited companies. Limited companies are not touched by it, and much the greatest proportion of the trade of the country is carried on by limited companies. The number of private firms whose partners have all their money locked up in their business is very small. Apart from other securities outside their business, nearly all these people have, or ought to have, in view of the profits which

    447
    have been made during the past few years, some War Stock with which to pay the levy or part of the levy. I may also add the Death Duty statistics show that the amount of the capital of the country which is locked up in the liquid capital of private firms is, proportionately, very small. It is, in fact, only about 5 per cent. of the capital of the country. However, in the case of these firms, it is not, for a moment, proposed to compel persons to pay, or toraise capital in order to meet the levy, when such an operation would cripple them and would be injurious to commerce and industry. The whole matter resolves itself into this: That, if a man cannot pay, or arrange to pay, in capital, or in so far as he cannot do this, he would be allowed to pay out of income, in one way or another, over a long period of years. The number of persons, however, who could mate out a case for paying wholly out of income would be small. The fourth method of meeting the levy without the realisation of securities is by payments in cash. Not very much would be done in this way. One of the objections urged against the scheme—and I rather think the right hon. Gentleman had this in his mind yesterday—is that there is not enough cash to do it, but I have already mentioned that the total amount of cash required would be small. Indeed, at any rate in theory, the whole operation could be carried through without any cash at all. Some persons, however, would no doubt decide to pay a part of the levy direct in cash, out of savings effected during the period allowed for the payment of the levy, and this would be a considerable time. Again, some persons would pay a certain amount in cash from deposits which they already had at the banks or elsewhere. In these two ways, a small amount of the levy would be paid in cash. By these four methods which I have now described, the whole of the levy could, as a matter of fact, be met without the necessity of realising any securities or of selling any property at all.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Assuming a man's assets consisted, say, of a few alleged racehorses, and shares in a newspaper company, which he could not sell, would be then hand over to the Government shares in the newspaper company or one of his alleged racehorses?
    Mr. ARNOLD: That would depend on whether they were preference shares or debentures and whether it was a good newspaper.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: What I had in mind was a most excellent one.
    Mr. ARNOLD: That would possibly be in the list, and, if not, my hon. Friend, whose capital was locked up in private firms, would be able to pay out of income over a number of years. I wish, next, to touch upon two objections, one sometimes brought, and the other very frequently brought, against a Capital Levy. The first is this: It is argued that the business community will be injured, because private firms will no longer have the same amount of war stock to take to the bank as security to obtain credit with, in view of the fact that the levy wall wipe out£6,000,000,000 of debt. I would point out that this objection does not apply in the case of limited companies because their total assets will not be diminished by the levy. The reply to the objection is a very complete one. It is this: That, the practice of using war stock as security with the banks for obtaining credit, continues or even increase the evils of inflation. Whatever this operation of obtaining credit by war stock may mean for the individual trader, it is, on balance, a bad thing for the country as a whole, because it means that credit is being increased without any corresponding increase of commodities. The effect, therefore, is to keep prices up, or even to drive prices up higher, and the result, as I have said, will be to continue the evils of inflation—and many of our present difficulties are due to inflation.
    The second objection which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made yesterday, and it is very frequently made, is that a capital levy would discourage savings and penalise thrift. The extraordinary thing about this argument is that those who use it apparently do not realise that a high Income Tax over a long series of years discourages savings and penalises thrift, and to a much greater extent, in my opinion, than a capital levy. Savings are penalised under the Income Tax scheme because a man has to pay Income Tax on the interest of his savings, whether the savings are past or future. It surely discourages savings if a man has to pay 8s. out of each £—and in some cases, with Super-tax, it will be distinctly more than 8s. in the £—out of the interest on his

    449
    savings to the Government. Moreover, it is virtually certain that, after the Royal Commission, which is inquiring into the Income Tax has reported, the differentiation which at present exists in the Income Tax on earned and unearned incomes will be increased, and that unearned incomes will have to pay a still heavier rate.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does the hon. Member bear in mind that most of the income now called unearned income is earned savings?
    Mr. ARNOLD: I am using the current phrase as regards taxation. The Committee perfectly well know what I mean. Unearned income will have to pay a higher rate. Personally, I think it is really a sound principle, but if this is increased it will mean a further penalisation of savings. For my part, I can scarcely conceive of a greater discouragement to saving than that, for a long period of years, a man will have to hand over to the Government nearly half, and, in some cases, more than half of the interest on his savings. The effect of this will be that many persons will say, "It is not worth while saving. I may as well use the money when I have got it, and then there will be no Income Tax to pay on it. I may as well buy pictures and jewellery, and so forth. Then, at any rate, I shall have something to show for my money, and nearly half of it will not be taken by the Government, which is the effect of the Income Tax scheme." It seems clear, therefore, that the high Incom Tax scheme, far from encouraging saving, will lead to extravagance and to luxurious living, and to locking up capital unproductively. This is most important. I submit that, between a Capial Levy and a high Income Tax, and their effects on saving, the balance of argument lies in favour of a levy on capital, which is a special operation, carried out for the purpose of dealing with a quite abnormal problem.
    It is objected further, however, that a capital levy would operate inequitably between those who haves saved and those who have not saved. But precisely the same objection applies to the high Income Tax. If a capital levy is unfair, so is a high Income Tax unfair. Why should a man who has saved be obliged to hand over nearly half, or, with Super-tax, more than half, of the interest on his savings to the Government, while the man who has not saved has had the use of his money all for himself? This whole point, how
    450
    ever, is greatly exaggerated. Generally speaking, there is a relative proportion between a man's capital and his income. There are, no doubt, exceptions, but they are much fewer than is commonly supposed. However, in the case of a man who has had a large income over a series of years, and who is found to have only a small capital—that is, a man who, presumably, has saved little—a provision could be made for the levying a special Income Tax where there is a great disproportion between income and capital. This is a perfectly practicable proposition, because the Government has all the Income Tax returns for many years back, and where there is a great disproportion between income and capital, a special Income Tax could be levied; and in this way, again, the capital levy scheme would work out more equitably than the high Income Tax scheme. Therefore my reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that, under a capital levy scheme, you can get at these people, whereas under a high Income Tax scheme you do not get at them to anything like the same extent.
    I wish next to restate the whole problem of the war debt in a somewhat different way, and to compare, in some other respects, the capital levy scheme with the high Income Tax scheme. The war debt, as I have said, is likely to amount to £8,000,000,000. Of this sum, much the major proportion has been subscribed from profits made out of current production during the War, and because of inflation and high prices the war debt is very much bigger than it ought to be. If prices and so forth had remained normal, the debt, instead of being £8,000,000,000, would have been £4,000,000,000 or £5,000,000,000. However, the sum is £8,000,000,000, and this has mostly been subscribed out of war profits, which have been inflated because of high prices, and the Government has to pay 5 per cent. interest on this huge inflated sum of £8,000,000,000, and 5 per cent. is nearly double the rate of interest which the Government used to pay before the War. The position, then, is that, on a debt which, because of inflation, is nearly double what it ought to be, the Government is paying nearly double its pre-war rate of interest. Nevertheless, the opponents of a capital levy say that the only way to deal with the problem is for the Government to go on paying this high rate of interest and gradually reduce the debt by means of a small sinking fund. That is to say, the country has to pay interest and

    451
    has to pay off this huge inflated sum out of current production—because that is what it comes to—over a long series of years. I would like to ask hon. Members to consider carefully what this means.
    It is virtually certain, as years go on, that prices will fall considerably from their present very high level. Therefore, all the time interest is being paid, and the debt is being slowly redeemed by means of a small sinking fund, the money paid to war-debt holders will come to have greater and greater purchasing power because of falling prices and may, indeed, in course of time, come to have double the present purchasing power. Nothing of this kind occurred with the borrowings made for the South African War. The rate of interest then was under 3 per cent., and there was practically no inflation and no material rise in prices. If the rate of interest during this War had been 3 per cent., and if there had been no material rise in prices, and the debt had, therefore, been, say, £5,000,000,000, instead of £8,000,000,000, then, under these circumstances, the charge against the national expenditure for interest on the debt would only have been £150,000,000, instead of £400,000,000. All these various considerations constitute, in my view, the strongest reasons for reducing the debt, and reducing it quickly. My argument is that, as we have borrowed these enormoussums at a time of inflated prices, we ought to liquidate the debt during the time when prices remain, more or less, inflated. If we wait until prices have fallen, perhaps, 50 per cent., when we come to redeem the debt we shall be repaying a sum which in real values will represent twice the sum we have borrowed.
    If I may illustrate this point in a homely way, I would put it like this: During the War, a man has lent one pair of boots to the Government, but later on, when prices are lower and the purchasing power of money is greater, it may be necessary, in order to redeem the debt, to return the equivalent of two pairs of boots. I contend that it is better to deal with this matter when it is only necessary to repay one pair of boots. But such a speedy liquidation of the debt can only be accomplished by a capital levy, and I wish again to make it clear that in what is proposed there is no confiscation and no breach of faith. The Government has undertaken to pay 5 per cent. interest on the debt. Let me, however, once more emphasise that the
    452
    only fund out of which the Government can pay the interest and redeem the debt is from taxation, and, therefore, I contend it is better to pay off a big portion of the debt quickly by a levy on capital. I want to make it plain, however, that, under a capital levy, no man will be compelled to surrender War Stock before the date when the stock is due. In what is proposed there is no compulsion and no breaking faith. Large amounts of war debt, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out yesterday, fall due during the next three years, and a capital levy will enable the Government to avoid the necessity of renewing these loans. Again, as regards the 5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–1947, and National War Bonds, due 1927–8–9, there will be no breaking faith. Holders will be given the option of having their stock, or a portion of their stock, paid off earlier on advantageous terms. There would be no compulsion. The whole operation would be entirely voluntary, but most of those concerned would be glad to take early repayment on good terms. Further, it is not proposed to pay off the whole debt, and, therefore, those persons who prefer not to take repayment would continue to hold that part of the debt which, in any event, will remain in existence.
    Now let us consider the alternative method of dealing with the War debt by means of the high Income Tax scheme. It is said that the only course to be pursued is to pay the interest and repay the debt over a long period of years out of production and increased production. I wish those who constantly urge this proposal, as if it were the last word on the subject, would consider carefully what, exactly, is involved in it, and how it will work out in practice. We want increased production. It is a good thing. But the workers have been promised, and they must get much the major portion of the fruits of increased production in higher wages and shorter hours. Both these have been promised them in order to raise their standard of life. These are the inducements which are held out to them to increase production. Therefore, this fund is not really available for debt purposes. The workers are certainly not going to increase production to pay interest on and to redeem an inflated war debt which is nearly all held by the wealthy classes and war profiteers. Moreover, even if increased production were available for debt purposes—and if faith is to be kept with the workers I submit it is not—let

    453
    hon. Members consider the effect of increased production in relation to the problem of the debt under the Income Tax scheme. The more production is increased, the more prices are likely to fall. As prices fall, the tendency is for profits to fall. But—and, Mr. Whitley, we are now really coming to the crux of the whole matter—the Income Tax has always to be paid in cash made out of current profits. If, in the course of years, prices go back to the pre-war level, it may be necessary to double production in order to make the same profits for Income Tax purposes as are made now by half the production. Perhaps that, is putting the proposition in the extreme way, but there is a good deal of truth in the argument, and it is bound to apply, if not completely, at any rate to a considerable extent. I ask this question: Are manufacturers and business men, despite increased production, going to be able during a period of falling prices—and that period may last for many years—to make the same amount of profits in money—that is, the same profits for Income Tax purposes—as they do now? In my view it is quite certain that they will not during the period of falling prices, and however much production is increased, be able to make the same amount of profit as they do now, more particularly as increased production is mortgaged for higher wages and shorter hours for the workers.
    What follows from all this? It follows that, to secure for the Exchequer the same amount of revenue that can be got from the Income Tax now, it will be necessary, as prices and profits fall, to raise the rate of Income Tax again and again. In order to get the requisite revenue for the Exchequer the Income Tax will have to be raised, and raised as time goes on, considerably above 8s. in the £. In my opinion the whole scheme will break down. It cannot be done. The Income Tax and other taxes will have to be put up to a level which will strangle industry and which will have the most serious effect upon the whole condition of the country and of the working-classes. The Income Tax scheme may be tried. I gather from yesterday's speech that it will be tried. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to make shift by means of it, even for a few years, but it will break down and the country will be driven to a levy on capital. But, as I have already shown, it will be much better to have a levy on capital now. It will.
    454
    be much better to repay these enormous sums, borrowed at a time of inflated prices, while prices remain more or less inflated.
    I have pointed out that, as a result of a capital levy, the general rate of the Income Tax could be reduced from 8s. in the £ to less than 3s. in the £. It is objected, however, that there is no guarantee, after the levy has been made, that the Income Tax will remain at the lower level. As a matter of fact there is no guarantee that it will remain at the higher level of 8s. in the £, and I have just contended—and I do not think it can be denied—that it is almost certain, if you seek to raise an enormous amount of revenue from Income Tax, that because of falling prices the Income Tax will, as time goes on, have to be raised considerably above 8s. in the £. This whole objection, however, that the Income Tax should not be reduced by a levy on capital lest it might be put up again to some extent, is really not valid, because apparently it means that no War Debt should be paid off at all and the Income Tax should always be kept at a high level. When an argument is fundamentally unsound, it is, perhaps, not necessary to spend much time in refuting it; but, looking more closely at the problem, I would point out that the major portion of the Income Tax is for the purpose of paying interest on War Debt. Once the debt is reduced by a levy on capital there it no need to put up the Income Tax from the lower level for the purpose of paying interest on the War Debt. There is no need to levy Income Tax for paying interest on debt which no longer exists. If, after the levy, the Income Tax is raised somewhat, it would in the main only be for the purpose of social reform.
    As far as I am concerned, I am all for social reform, and I hold that it is a very good investment for the wealthy classes and for the country. It pays in the end, and it pays the wealthy classes in the end. The people are not going back to pre-war conditions. Nearly all Members of the House are pledged to a big expenditure on social reform, and, if they are to keep their pledges, it behoves them to take such steps as will make a big expenditure on social reform possible. If the Income Tax is to be 8s. in the £, or higher, not much will be done in the direction of social reform, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that he cannot raise the Income Tax still higher, and the

    455
    wealthy classes are likely to find themselves in a difficult, not to say dangerous, position. It is, indeed, true to say that the absence of a capital levy will prevent much social reform, and this is not desirable either in the interests of the wealthy classes or of the country as a whole.
    Two or three words, in conclusion, on the point taken up by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. That is the objection to a Capital Levy on what I may call psychological grounds. It is said that a Capital Levy may not discourage saving any more than Income Tax, but that people will think it will. Again, it is said that a levy may not take capital out of businesses, but people will think it will, and a levy will have an unsettling effect on trade, and will damage credit. In my view, far from damaging credit, a Capital Levy will help credit by showing the financial strength of the country, and by demonstrating that the huge incubus of the War debt can be supported and dealt with. A Capital Levy is not a sign of weakness, but of strength. It means that the position is being faced squarely and being dealt with boldly. Again, one result of the operation would be that, after the levy, taxation would be much lower than would otherwise be the case, and therefore a country which has a capital levy would be advantaged in competitive power in international trade. It is likely that some countries on the Continent will have a capital levy, and it would, therefore, be well for us not to be behindhand. This is a point of practical importance. If a Capital Levy would be so disastrous, how is it that a scheme has been prepared by the French Government? Arguments based on psychological considerations must always be of questionable soundness, but if these considerations are to be brought into the matter, there is, in my opinion, one overwhelming reply which outweighs all such objections, and that is, that unless there is a capital levy, the workers and returned soldiers will think—and, in my view, they will be right in thinking—that they are helping to pay this huge amount of interest on the debt, and they will ask again and again: "To whom is all this money being paid?" The answer can only be: "The money is mainly being paid to wealthy men, most of whom, being above military age, have not fought in the War, but many of whom have made
    456
    huge profits out of the War." I do not think this is a position which can be maintained over a long series of years.
    We are faced with grave industrial unrest. I cannot conceive of anything which is more calculated to tend in the direction of producing a better condition of things than that the wealthy classes should now, without delay, and without compulsion, shoulder this huge burden of the War Debt and get it out of the way. The psychological benefit of such a proceeding might be incalculable. There are many other considerations in favour of a capital levy which I cannot touch on in this speech, but I will take one of them in conclusion. It is this: Most of the capital of the country is owned by older men, and therefore most of the levy will be paid by men who have not fought in the War, and the levy would do something to make conditions approximate a little more nearly to that ideal of equality of sacrifice of which we have heard so much and seen so little. Unless a levy is made, the high Income Tax which will be necessary will be a bigger burden on younger men than on older men. Most younger men have already, quite apart from their immense hardships in the Army, lost two or three of the best business years of their life. Their careers have been gravely prejudiced, and they will start again at a great disadvantage in the work of building up businesses and saving capital. This is inevitable, but if, in addition, they have to bear their proportion of a high Income Tax, they will be still further handicapped in securing an income and making a position. A little reflection will show that a high Income Tax, generally speaking, and despite abatements, will be a heavier burden on younger men than on older men, whose position is established, and who have already got their capital. Clearly it has been easier for the older man to accumulate capital—for they have done it when the Income Tax has been low—and in order that the younger men may have anything like the same chance, the Income Tax should be made as low as possible for them also. This can only be accomplished by a capital levy. Older men keep passing away, and, as years go on, the simple truth is that, under the high Income Tax scheme, much of the cost of the War will fall on men who have done actual fighting. They will not only have fought for their country, but they will be called upon to pay a big part of the bill. This I hold to be most unjust. Finally, all schemes of

    457
    taxation and finance should be practicable, equitable, and economically sound. I submit that the scheme which I have outlined is practicable, is equitable, and is economically sound, and, I would add, inevitable, for to meet a financial problem of unprecedented magnitude and gravity, a capital levy, combined, as it would be, with a large and immediate reduction in current taxation, possesses a balance of net advantages over any alternative plan that can be proposed.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I think there will be grave differences of opinion as to the validity of the argument which the hon. Member has just addressed to us. I do not, however, think there will be any difference of opinion as to the very great ability with which the hon. Gentleman has marshalled his arguments, and the great lucidity with which he has explained a very complicated scheme, and for that lucidity I am particularly grateful. I think, too, that he has been successful, at any rate in the earlier part of his speech, in avoiding any appeal to prejudice or passion, although I do not think he was quite so successful in that respect during the concluding portion of his speech. On the whole, however, the attacked this business proposition from a business point of view, and it is from that point of view that I desire, in a few words, to examine the, argument which he has laid before the Committee. Before I pass to this very thorny problem of a levy on capital may I be permitted to say a word in warm congratulation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the whole Budget which he has introduced? It seems to me that this Budget is conceived on bold and broad and simple lines, and that the Chancellor of Exchequer has steered his way with conspicuous success between the Scylla of commonplace and the Charybdis of sensationalism. If the right hon. Gentleman has sinned in regard to the Estate Duties or the Spirit Duty, at any rate, he has had the courage to sin boldly.
    In my view, his Budget will take its place among the historic Budgets of England, chiefly for one reason, namely, for the embodiment, as I hope it will be, in the Statute Law of this country of the principle of Imperial Preference. I am not going to develop that point, but I do think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be very warmly congratulated upon his decision to disentangle the question of Empire trade partnership from the question of fiscal and revenue reform. I think
    458
    it is a very great pity that these two questions were originally associated. I believe that if this question had been treated and discussed apart it would have been better for the solution of the problem of Imperial union. I think it is also bare justice that the Imperial Parliament, in accepting this principle, as I hope it will, should acknowledge not with shame but with some measure of repentence that we are now only following the example patriotically given to us by the great Dominions of the Crown. It is now twenty-two years since the Dominion of Canada gave a lead to the Mother Country and to the other Dominions on this question of Imperial Preference. During the next ten years that lead was followed by South Africa, New-Zealand and Australia, and now here after twenty-two years, taught by the experience of a terrible war, we have tentatively and tardily accepted this principle. But still we have accepted it, or at least I hope we shall accept it, and I believe it will mark a new departure in the relations of the whole British Commonwealth.
    I had intended addressing to the Com-a few remarks upon certain inequalities with regard to the Income Tax law administration, but I gather that on that question the right hon. Gentleman preserves an open mind and he has promised to appoint a Commission. There is, however, one question upon which he does riot preserve an open mind, and that is the question which was brought forward by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Arnold) to-night. I am very thankful that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer does not preserve an open mind on that question. The hon. Member has contrasted the attitude of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer with that of his predecessor. I am not concerned with that, but I am thankful that we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer now who has not an open mind on this question.
    Let me now turn to the very skilful and detailed argument which has been laid before the Committee by the hon. Member for Penistone. I tried to follow his argument with very great attention, and I think the Committee will agree that I am doing no injustice to the main portion of his argument if I say that the greater part of it rested upon the supposed advantage of this capital levy as opposed to a high Income Tax. The greater part of the case of the

    459
    hon. Member opposite really rested on the supposed advantage of his scheme, as opposed to the maintenance of the imposition of a very high Income Tax. He suggested this as the only practical alternative to an Income Tax which he put tentatively at 8s. in the £.
    I am perfectly prepared, for argument's sake, to accept one part of his Argument. I think the hon. Member suggested that a 25 per cent. levy on capital would work out to the advantage of the individual taxpayer as compared with an 8s. Income Tax. I have worked out very rapidly a simple calculation. Take an estate of £100,000 invested in War Loan at 5 per cent. If you take the Income Tax at 8s. in the £, that would mean that the possessor of that estate would enjoy a net income of £3,000 a year; I think my figures are correct. If, on the other hand, you deduct, as the hon. Member opposite wishes to deduct, a capital sum of 25 per cent., that I admit would, in conjunction with a 3s. Income Tax, leave £3,187 10s. for the possessor of that capital. I admit that there is a very small balance in that transaction in favour of the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but allow me to point out that the whole of the argument of the hon. Member depends on the acceptance of four assumptions. Firstly, that his capital revenue would not exceed 25 per cent.; secondly, that it would never be repeated, that it is going to be a clean cut; thirdly, that if you adopt this expedient you will be able to reduce your Income Tax considerably, I think he said to 3s.
    Mr. ARNOLD: From 8s. to less than 3s.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Yes; to less than 3s. in the £ and, fourthly, that that reduction will be a permanent one. I do not think anyone will deny that the hon. Member's argument rests on those assumptions. Now I ask who is there in a position to make this bargain with the taxpayer? Is the Treasury in that position? Is the present Government in the position to make this bargain, or is the present House of Commons in that position? No; nobody is in a position to make this bargain, and if there is one thing more than another certain it is that if this levy is to be successful—I am the last person to admit that it is possible that it will be successful, but I will admit it for the moment—it will be repeated again and again on a more ambitious scale.
    460
    One of the Reviews a day or two ago admitted frankly that many of the arguments against this levy would be cogent if not conclusive if we were obliged to regard it as recurrent, and it was argued that one of its chief advantages would be that its very effectiveness will make its recurrence unnecessary. I think the writer of that article must either be very remote from political affairs or not a very close observer of human nature. Is there anyone simple enough to suppose that if this levy proves efficient for the immediate purpose the hon. Member has in view, that it will not afterwards be demanded for the financing of a thousand fads. There can be no finality in it, and the hon. Member is trifling with the common sense of the House and the country if he suggests that the levy will be a final or complete process in itself. I do not think some of his immediate friends would even suggest that it would be final. Therefore the first and fundamental assumption on which the whole argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite rests seems to me untenable.
    8.0 p.m.
    I pass to his second point, namely, that his proposal will enable a large reduction to be made in the general rate of the Income Tax, to something under 3s. in the £. Towards the end of the speech the hon. Member developed an argument which to my mind was a very curious one, namely, that the older men who have not fought in the War are to pay a levy in order that the younger men who have fought may start or restart their industrial careers without the crushing burden of an 8s. Income Tax. Who is going to guarantee in perpetuity a reduced rate of Income Tax? Certainly the hon. Gentlemen opposite will not give such a guarantee. Not long ago I read in the "Manchester Guardian" an article by a distinguished member of the Socialist party. I think it was Mr. J. A. Hobson, who said:
    "I have been accused of advocating a capital levy as an alternative to a high Income Tax."
    What did Mr. Hobson say? He said:
    "I want them both,"
    The hon. Member now proposes it as an alternative, but I am not quite sure, if he gets what he wants, that he will long propose it as an alternative. No one is in a position to give a guarantee, and, without an absolute guarantee on both these points, the whole of this portion of the argument of the hon. Member falls to

    461
    the ground. So much for the relief of the wealthy taxpayer for whose interests the hon. Member opposite is extraordinarily solicitous. He is so concerned for the wealthy taxpayer! I have attempted to meet him on that particular ground. I pass to his next great argument, namely, that a high Income Tax is a fatal deterrent to the re-starting of our industrial concerns. On that point we want to be a little careful to discriminate between existing and established concerns and concerns which have yet to make a successful start. Well-established concerns are already taxpayers, and the argument which I have already developed applies to them. The wiping out of the State's indebtedness by means of a capital levy as proposed by the hon. Member looks at first sight as if it ought to be favourable to new or young businesses. He made great play with that argument. Let me examine it for a minute or two a little more closely. Would it; be the advantage which he supposes? I ask the Committee to consider this point. What is it which these young businesses, apart from brains and enterprise, will most need? It is capital—abundant and cheap capital. Where are they to get it? Does anyone imagine, if this simple and alluring expedient be adopted—I must not call it an act of repudiation, because I do not want to be in any way provocative—that anyone will take the trouble to save a sovereign, or even a shilling, again? The supply of new capital will be dried up at the source. No one will ever take the trouble to save a shilling again.
    Colonel THORNE: What are they going to do with it?
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Spend it.
    Colonel THORNE: Then it will find work.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: It is very much better that they should save it in the interests of industrial economy as a whole. It is not the people who spend, but the people who save, who keep the industries going. Let as look at this matter for a moment, as the hon. Member invited us to do, from the point of view of the Exchequer. Let us suppose that we are able to do what he wants and are able to conscript capital, or, if I may not use that term, make a capital levy of 25 per cent. Consider how such a levy will react upon that current revenue which the hon. Member wants to raise to £900,000,000 a year. By cutting off
    462
    your capital sum you will, pro rata, diminish the yield of your Income Tax from so-called unearned income.
    Mr. ARNOLD: That is perfectly true, and it is all taken into account in my calculation. I have allowed for it.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the endorsement which he has given to one sentence in my argument.
    Mr. ARNOLD: It is a matter of fact.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: It is a matter of fact, and therefore I ventured to state it as a fact, but I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for his endorsement even of a fact. You will pro rata diminish your Income Tax yield. That is not all. Has the hon. Member also taken into account that you will pro rata diminish your yield from those Death Duties to which so many people are attracted? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot conscript the same capital both during the lifetime of its owner and also after his death. If you take it in the form of a levy on the capital of the living, you cannot take it in the form of a levy on the capital of the dead. You much choose between them. You cannot have it both ways. The Committee may think that I am venturing on rather a double-edged argument in this respect. I am sorry not to see in his place one of the leaders of the Opposition who spoke first this afternoon (Sir D. Maclean). He was very much attracted by the argument that after all there is no difference in principle between a levy on the capital of the living and a levy on the capital of the dead. He argued that if you can levy this tax upon the capital of the dead without any injurious effect upon the revenue you can levy it on the capital of the living. I am perfectly prepared to admit that is quite true if you accept two assumptions: First of all, that man is a purely rational animal, and, secondly, that everybody dies simultaneously.
    Colonel THORNE: If we were all dead there would be no taxation.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Probably the hon. Member would survive in any case. I cannot imagine that even a levy on capital would kill him. If everybody were to die simultaneously, it would be just as difficult to levy the Death Duties as to have a tax upon the capital of the living. Again, if man were an entirely rational animal, the Death

    463
    Duties would have just the same effect upon the accumulation of wealth as I believe this levy on capital will have. Here I admit you are up against psychology, and the hon. Member who introduced the question was very anxious to avoid that particular study. The Committee will observe that I have thus far gone with the hon. Member so far as to admit the possibility and the practicability of the proposal which he has made. But now I want for a moment to come to rather closer grips with the question, and I will invite the Committee to consider what is this accumulated wealth on which this levy can be made There is one indicative word in many speeches and writings on this subject. People talk about a "hoard of wealth" or a "hoard of capital." That is a word of very sinister association It conjures up the vision of some rapacious mediæval baron sitting on his money-bags, or some modern money-lender, or some wretched miser hugging his ill-gotten gains. If all the accumulated wealth were in gold or metal, a levy upon capital would be comparatively a simple process, but we all know that it consists of gold in the least degree. It consists of all sorts of things: houses, land, factories, shops, works, warehouses, stocks of every kind, implements, machinery, stocks and shares, certificates, and so on. The whole of this has been put at £15,000,000,000 or £16,000,000,000. That is the ordinary estimate, but it is pure guess work, and the first thing that you would have to do would be to value the whole of the accumulated wealth of the country. We heard yesterday from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that they have not found it very easy even to value the land of the country alone. I venture to tell the Committee that the valuation of the land is child's play as compared with the valuation of the whole of the accumulated wealth of the country. The hon. Member did not touch upon this point. The valuation would form a serious impediment in the way of the proposal which he has made. But let us assume that you have valued, and that you proceed to take the 25 per cent. which the hon. Member wants. The moment you proceed to lay a finger on this wealth, a great deal of it will automatically evaporate in your hands. You may value it by guesswork at £16,000,000,000 to-day, but a very large proportion of it will dis-
    464
    appear the moment that you attempt to lay your hands upon it. I know that the hon. Member opposite, who has given a very great deal of thought to this subject, has various ingenious devices, and he mentioned several of them this afternoon, for avoiding this depreciation. He told us that some of it would be taken in cash. He did not lay any great stress on that, and I congratulate him upon his moderation in that matter. I do not think that he will get much of it in cash.
    Mr. ARNOLD: I said so.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I did not misrepresent the hon. Member. I said that he did not expect to get much of it in cash, but he did say that he expected to get some of it in cash. I venture to say that it will be very little. He then went on to say that he would expect to get, though he would not insist upon it, a great deal of it in War Bonds—the cancellation of war stock. If you are really relying on this particular method of getting it, then it is nothing less than the repudiation of your debt, naked and unashamed repudiation. It has fallen to my lot in the last few years to go on many platforms and ask for the savings of many classes of people. I assured them that whatever happened their savings would be absolutely sacred and free from any possibility of cancellation or repudiation. But if this levy is really seriously proposed I shall feel I have got a good deal of money by false pretences. Then we are to have great facilities by banks guaranteed against loss by the Government, and we are to have a handing over of securities which it will not be necessary for the Government to realise. But I want to put this point to the Committee. If the Government do not realise the securities how will the holding of them reduce the debt?
    Mr. ARNOLD: The Government does not continue to hold the securities. It exchanges them with War Stock holders, and having got the War Stock it cancels it. Many persons would be very glad to make the exchange.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: That is another form of realisation.
    Mr. ARNOLD: No, it avoids realisation.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: On that point I venture respectfully to differ from the hon. Gentleman I say if the Government do not realise it would simply be another means of raising the Income Tax. It

    465
    would by the amount of interest reduce, not the capital value of the debt but the interest on the debt. You can only reduce the capital value by realisation in some form or other, and that is another and more objectionable form of raising Income Tax. If you levy you will compel sooner or later realisation, and compulsory realisation means certain depreciation. Who will buy securities or anything else of a permanent character with this menace hanging over the whole institution of private property? Let me be scrupulously fair in this matter to the hon. Gentleman. Some forms of wealth are to be exempted from the levy. I notice in a scheme put forward in a pamphlet by the Workers' War Emergency National Committee it is proposed to exempt two forms of wealth—that which is in the Savings Bank and that which is invested in Co-operative Societies. But why this particular form of discrimination? Why are you going to exempt £100 in the Savings Bank and take the £100 in War Loans? Still more, is it really fair or just to penalise the man who saves compared with the man who spends. Take the cases of three professional men each earning £1,000. One earns £1,000 and saves and invests two hundred a year out of it; the second spends his income right up to the hilt; and the third spends £800 and insures his life with the rest. These are three, typical cases, and I want to put this question seriously to hon. Members opposite. Are you going to treat the life insurance policy as capital and make it subject to this levy?
    Mr. ARNOLD: I do not think we can carry on this by questions across the floor of the House. I am prepared to deal with it, but it is a long order.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Still, it is important as bearing on the question of equity with which I am dealing. I will not press the hon. Member for an immediate reply, but many of his friends will have an opportunity later on—
    Mr. ARNOLD: I cannot deal with it in a sentence.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: I put it to the hon. Member's friends as a point on which the Committee would like some enlightenment. It is a question of equity. If you are going to treat the life insurance policy as capital you will have to face a big outcry. If you are not, how are you going to justify the discrimination between the man who
    466
    saves £200 and invests it and the man who uses it in insuring his life? And still more, why are you going to penalise the man who saves £200 as against the man who spends his income up to the hilt? Which is the better citizen? You are treating as the worst citizen the man who is really making a contribution to the commonwealth. Just one word more. I have already detained the House, not so long, perhaps, as the hon. Member who preceded me, but longer than I have any right to do. I will only add a word or two in conclusion. This is the point which I would most earnestly and most respectfully press, not only upon hon. Members opposite and upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, if my voice can reach so far, on the country as a whole and on every individual taxpayer, man and woman, throughout the country. Of all questions of current finance, the most absolutely fundamental is this: Do you or do you not believe capital is essential to industry and production? I want everyone to answer that simple question for himself. I am sure that the hon. Member for Penistone will answer it in the affirmative. I am certain of it. Then if capital be essential to production, how are you going to get capital? Can any human being suggest any other method of obtaining capital than the, if you like, autiquated and old-fashioned method of offering some inducement, some reasonable inducement, to saving and to thrift? There are two processes involved in the accumulation of wealth—of wealth which is destined to become capital. First it must be produced. Hon. Members will not deny that, and that is the only proposition I am inviting their attention to at the moment. I repeat they will not deny that wealth must be produced. But will they admit that the producer must be, by some means or other, induced to abstain from the immediate consumption of the wealth which he has produced? These are two questions to which I would like an answer.
    Is there any other way? Some hon. Members may say there is, and may mention taxation. But can you get capital by taxation? I admit that by taxation you can prevent the consumption of wealth after its production, but you cannot by taxation or any other method compel the production of wealth. You are already by your existing system of taxation—and this is a point common to myself and to the hon. Member for Penistone—very

    467
    seriously discouraging and penalising the habit of accumulation in the country. The man who is absolutely and directly engaged in production may out of sheer enthusiasm for his job scrape and save every penny he can for the development of his business. But I beseech the Committee to remember that the big capitalist employer is very rapidly disappearing from this country. The capital for your big industries is supplied for the most part by your small investors, by persons who are not even remotely concerned in the business itself, and it is these small investors that you have to encourage to save and to postpone the gratification of their immediate appetites in the hope of the peaceful enjoyment of leisure later on. I hope we may soon see such a reform of the Income Tax laws as will afford that encouragement. Still more earnestly do I hope that the Government, the House, and the country will turn a deaf ear to the seductive arguments advanced by the hon. Member opposite. I believe those arguments to be seductive. I know they are seductive. They have been put forward this afternoon with conspicuous ability. But, though seductive. I believe them to be emphatically fallacious, and I trust that the House will, on the contrary, endorse the view I have endeavoured to submit. I know that my view is hopelessly old-fashioned compared with that of the hon. Member opposite. That does not trouble me in the least. It means that the argument has stood the test of time. I am certain that, if reason and not prejudice be allowed to prevail in this matter, it will continue to stand that test. I hope the House will not only repudiate the views of the hon. Member opposite, but will repudiate them with emphasis and, so faras it can, with finality, and for this reason: I believe that for the timidity of trade which we are all deploring to-day and for the tardiness of our industrial recovery there are all sorts of complex reasons, but the essential reason is lack of confidence. What we want, above all, is the restoration of that confidence. Especially do we want to offer every possible re-assurance to those who, even though their motives are purely self-regarding, are by thrift and the accumulation of capital performing a real service to the commonwealth.
    Mr. A. SHORT: I feel sure that the Committee will agree when I say that we
    468
    have had very interesting and illuminating arguments advanced by the two last speakers from opposite points of view upon the very vital question of the imposition of a capital levy. I have no desire to traverse the same ground, but I may say that the Labour Party view tins proposal with favour because they are inclined to the opinion that it will provide a reasonable and justifiable method of securing thy return to the coffers of the State of a large measure of that enhanced wealth which has been secured as a direct result of the War and of the operations arising out of the War. I have no doubt that when propositions of a novel and original character have been placed before this House in the past there was the same conflict of opinion, the same doubts and suspicions, thrown upon their efficacy and the possibility of their bringing the due reward suggested by their supporters. But subsequent events have transpired which have proved the doubts and suspicions to be false, and we have frequently seen the adoption of these novel and original proposals which have become part and parcel of our system of taxation. I do not claim to be conversant with all the intricacies and complexities of finance, the ramifications of which in these days have passed beyond the confines of our country and have entered the arena of international finance. But finance, after all—a sound, sane system of finance—basedupon the ability to pay—a system which does not lower the standard of living and which does not undermine the standard of subsistence of the humbler classes of the community—is the basic foundation of our national prosperity. Without that solid foundation in finance I am afraid it will not be possible for this or any other Government, no matter what its complexion, to face with equanimity either our financial commitments on the one hand, or, on the other hand, those grave social problems which confront us and which have been brought to our observation during the lifetime of the present Parliament. Energy, good will, unity of purpose. co-operation—all these things are fine in themselves, but, after all, we must have a sound system of finance, and that sound system of finance should be based upon a sound system of taxation. If we are going to face these problems adequately and effectively, I cannot foresee any shrinkage in our financial commitments in the future.
    Reference has been made to economy. It is not for me to say one word in depre-

    469
    ciation of the value of economy in these days. I believe that economy on the part of the Government and on the part of the individual are essential in view of our commitments. But if it is suggested by this Government that economy should be practised to the extent of delaying these great measures of social reform, if these great social sores upon the body politic are not going to be quickly and effectively dealt with, if we are not going to remove those vast injustices and evils which have so long sullied our national life and degraded our people, I am confident that the people of this country and we on these benches, will not tolerate economy of that kind. The opinion has been expressed in some quarters that there are great reservoirs of wealth, unlimited in extent. I would only say that the War has brought to the notice of the people of this country extraordinary manifestations of wealth of which they had little knowledge.
    Great reservoirs of apparently hidden wealth have been disclosed, and, in addition, we are satisfied that the War itself has led to a vast increase in the private fortunes of individuals. Whatever may have been the policy of Governments in the past, these things have proved conclusively to the people of the country, to the thinking portion, at any rate, of our community, the insincerity of Governments in the past so far as finance is concerned. Therefore, if economy is to be practised, it will have to be practised at the expense of the well-to-do, and not at the expense of the humbler classes in the community, for whom we particularly speak from these benches. I believe myself that the day is fast approaching when the idle rich who have lounged through life and who have been exempt from wealth production, and who have battened upon industry and in too many cases have scoffed at the sordid miseries of the wage earners, will have to go, for I believe that society will not tolerate what John Stuart Mill termed the social evil of a non-labouring class, whether that non-labouring class be at the bottom of society or at the top of society. Reference has been made by the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) to a criticism uttered by the Leader of the Labour party, and he suggested that wealth was the product of the energy, the foresight, and other conditions associated with captains of industry and employers of labour. He appeared to fail to recognise even the services of the labourer in this connection,
    470
    and to demonstrate and to justify his arguments he quoted the name of an eminent captain of industry who, at any rate, does occupy a position of eminence in his attempt to do something for his workers other than bleed them. I would recall to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman, if he were in his place, that the great mass of the wealth which those people enjoy and which we have noticed during the War has largely come as the result of paying inadequate wages to the workers of this country and through not rewarding thorn adequately, effectively, and sufficiently for their labour.
    In my own Constituency in 1913 the standard rate of wages for labourers was 18s. per week and for eight weeks those men, with their families dependent upon them, went out on strike to secure an increase of a few shillings per week in those wages. I also recall that in 1911 and onward over 100,000 railway men in this country received less than £1 a week. Had the exceptional profits and extraordinary wealth of private capitalists and employers of labour been used as it ought to have been, to provide better wages and better houses and better facilities in the amenities of life, it would have been more creditable to them, and this country would have been richer and better so far as its human population was concerned. The same right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the wages of the workers had increased. But the wages during the War have not increased in proportion to the increased cost of living. He complained also that the well-to-do had not doubled their private fortunes during the period of the War. We have statistics and evidence which prove conclusively that if during the period of the War they have not doubled they have increased to an extraordinary extent their wealthy holding. I find from the latest Return of the Inland Revenue Department that there has been an increase in this country during the period of the War as compared with 1914 of persons who have an annual income of £100,000 and over. I find also that in 1914 there were 30,211 persons with an aggregate income of £244,169,134, and on 30th April, 1916, that number had decreased to 29,723, but the aggregate amount had increased to £247,257,124, and no matter where one turns one finds that there has been as the result of the War a great increase in the wealth of the wealthy classes of our community. I would also like to call the attention of the Committee

    471
    to the fact that there are some 40,000 families numbering 150,000 persons enjoying incomes exceeding £2,500, and they draw in the aggregate £300,000,000, or one-tenth of the national production, and this class has been greatly enriched by the War. We have a second class in the community comprising some 3,000,000 persons, including their families, who enjoy incomes ranging from £130 to £2,500, and in the aggregate they draw £1,500,000,000. Then I find that the great mass of the community receive as their share of the total wealth of the country £1,250,000,000, somewhere about 15s. per week I should imagine. Even in this country at this time there are people ranging about £l per week. The Labour party does not suggest for a moment that the working men should not be taxed. We do not suggest that he should not pay his fair share of taxation. We stand for a direct tax upon income, with due regard to ability to pay and to the standard of life at the moment.
    This it appears to me is a Budget in which privilege, monopoly, and wealth can find solace and comfort. It is a rich man's Budget. The captains of industry, who have done so well as the result of the War, find relief in the reduction of the Excess Profits Tax with a promise of its ultimate withdrawal. The well-to-do motorist finds joy and relief in the abolition of the Petrol Tax, the landowner and the land speculator in the condemnation of the Land Taxes and their remittance for consideration to a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiated the principle of the Excess Profits Tax, largely on the ground that lavish and wasteful expenditure by employers had taken place. This took place during the period of the War in which the Government had control of materials. Before anything could be done, if I am correctly informed, employers had received priority from some Government Department. Why was this lavish expenditure allowed? There is only one reason in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of those who have thought at all. It is that neither the employers for the Government were anxious that the real truth should be known regarding the actual profits made by these companies out of the War and the operations arising there from. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to discontinue this tax, and, as far as I can see, indicates the setting up of no machinery which is going
    472
    to prevent in the future a similar evasion and a similar failure on the part of the employers to recognise their obligations to the State. So far as the Labour party is concerned, we shall oppose the abolition of this tax, unless there can be provided an alternative and an equivalent tax to take its place.
    The right hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker) stated that the workers of this country, now that they have to pay Income Tax, were crying aloud for relief. If that be so, there is justification for that attitude of mind. What is the value of £130 to-day? If one's income exceeds £130 one pays Income Tax on £10. What is the value of money to-day? It is less than half what it was in August, 1914. Consequently the imposition of Income Tax upon incomes of £130, coupled with the heavy incidence of indirect taxation upon tea, sugar, and the necessaries of the working-class home is too great, and has a tendency to lower the standard of life and the subsistence level of our people. Therefore, the Labour party, in harmony with the demands of the organised workers of this country, put forward a plea for the remodeling of the basis of the payment of Income Tax, and we think the amount should be raised from £130 to £250. Whatever may be said about this Budget, whatever may be its virtues and whatever may be its vices, the great outstanding feature is that the right hon. Gentleman has provided no means whereby those who have enriched themselves during the period of the War are going to disgorge their wealth. I believe he is evading not only a public duty but a very pressing demand which is made upon him by the people of this country. The Labour party will not be satisfied unless and until we can secure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some indication that the Government proposes to recognise its responsibilities in this matter and to return to the people of this country that which is their rightful heritage, so far as the enhanced wealth of the country is concerned, arising directly from the prosecution of this War.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think the Committee will be impatient if an Irish representative intervenes in this Debate. It is rather a regrettable circumstance that on an occasion of this character, when there is to be placed upon the already overburdened shoulders of the Irish taxpayer an additional £10,000,000, we are practically unrepresented in this House. English

    473
    Members may say that the fault does not lie with this House but with Ireland, but I think I need hardly enter into all the controversies which have taken place, not only during this Session but in previous Sessions, to prove that the responsibility for this somewhat extraordinary constitutional anomaly rests not upon Ireland but upon the Government of this country. We are in the strange, I might almost say the grotesque position that in this Empire, with its loud vaunted boast of freedom, Ireland only knows the principle of taxation without representation, because even when the old Irish representatives came here to Parliament our voices were practically silenced, and our votes wore rendered almost nugatory by the overwhelming vote against us, when we raised not only the financial but the political rights of our country. It seems to me rather a strange circumstance that the people of Ireland, continuously taunted by members of the Government and by their supporters in the country of having refused to play our part in the Great War, are now compelled to bear more than our share of the financial burdens of this War. I think there never was a grosser slander than to say that Ireland has not done her duty in this War. Her voluntary recruits rushing to the Colours when first the flag of liberty was raised on the plains of Europe, the superior courage of her soldiers, the splendid and impressive part they played in all the great battles, their record of courage, and of chivalry, will be justified and vindicated by history when the politicians who misrepresent and assail Ireland will be forgotten.
    What do we find in this Budget? We find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward, and that practically the only commodities taxed are commodities which constitute practically the only really prosperous industries in three provinces in Ireland. The Whisky Duties and the Beer Duties will result in imposing upon Ireland an additional burden of £10,000,000. We are often told—I have listened to the taunt repeatedly not only from members of the Government but from Members in different parts of the House—that the only thing upon which Ireland can unite is in the attempt to rob the British Treasury. There seems to be a delusion existing in the minds of the people of this country that Ireland is a great financial drain upon this country and a burden upon the Empire. What is the fact? The total revenue collected in Ireland for 1918 was
    474
    £26,865,000, while the total expenditure was £13,200,000. The revenue contributed exceeded the expenditure by £73,665,000, and now, with the new Spirit and Beer Duties, there is to be added to that excess of revenue over expenditure a sum of nearly £10,000,000, so that Ireland will pay as her contribution to the Empire, over and above the expenditure in Ireland, a sum of £23,000,000. In this country there has been vast expenditure, and colossal sums of money have been raised for the War, but this country has benefited by that expenditure. Ireland has practically got nothing in the way of the making of munitions. With the exception of whatever advantages gained to the agricultural community and the farming classes, the War was of no industrial or economic value to Ireland. The War must have been of great financial advantage to this country, according to the speech of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whit-taker). In the first portion of his speech he painted so magnificent a picture of the prosperity of this country owing to the War that I was inclined to interrupt him and to say, "If you are to draw a logical conclusion from your speech, the sooner we have another war the better for this country."
    9.0 P.M.
    He told about the boundless wealth of the working classes, though I confess I did not follow him there. The working classes have practically had their wages doubled, I understand, in this country, but, if they have, the essential commodities of life have been doubled in cost. There is not much advantage there. I think nobody will defend the conditions under which the workers lived in this country prior to the War. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine, or does anybody imagine, that if there had never been a war at all that the wonting classes of England would have been satisfied with the prolongation of pre-war economic and industrial conditions for the toiling masses of this nation? Nothing of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman painted a picture of the magnificent prosperity and of the tremendous advantage the War has been to the working classes. I remember—I do not say it was the right hon. Gentleman, but many of his cult—that when the Old Age Pensions Bill was first introduced, and long before it became an Act of Parliament, which involved the raising of £25,000,000 to pay a weekly dole of 5s. to

    475
    the wounded soldiers of the industrial war, for the purpose of bringing some light and brightness and comfort into the lives of the old men and women who had been the soldiers of industry for a period of fifty or sixty years, there was not a single Member of the type of the light hon. Gentleman, who did not almost howl with rage at the possibilities of the universal destruction that was bound to come to industry and capital if this sum of £25,000,000 was imposed as a burden upon the State. That old wheeze rang round this House, and round about this House, every time a single social reform was adumbrated by any Minister in those days, and yet the very men who told us that the structure of the British Empire would fall to pieces if this £25,000,000 was to be spent upon giving some measure of comfort to those who in their youth and in the fulness of their lives had built up the greatness, the power, and the industrial strength of this country, were the very men who, without any hesitation, voted £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a day for the War, and did it light-heartedly. One lesson which we can deduce from the financial aspect of the War is this, that the nation which for five years has been able to bear the burden of a £7,000,000 a day war is anation which ought to be able to do something to improve the conditions of the people, give them better houses, better wages, better clothes, better conditions, shorter hours, and some compensation for the tribute they pay to the common reservoir of prosperity in this country.
    We in Ireland are asked to bear an additional burden of £10,000,000 imposed upon us by an English Chancellor of the Ex-chequer, and by an English Parliament in which we have no direct voice or influence. [Laughter.] Well, at any rate, you have my voice. That is all I get out of the transaction. I am almost as unsuccessful in my Parliamentary sphere of operations as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Brigadier-General Croft). So far as results are concerned we may constitute ourselves as the twin brothers of the triumph of Parliamentary failure. Where do we stand in this matter? In the first place, I deny the right of this Parliament to tax Ireland at all, and I rise to protest against this Parliament taxing Ireland. This Parliament has no moral right to tax Ireland. It is not an Irish Parliament. It is not responsible to the Irish people. Ireland has no power, and can exercise
    476
    no influence upon finance, in this House. Therefore, this Parliament has no moral power whatever to tax Ireland. Secondly, I object to paying an additional tribute of £10,000,000 a year for a Government in, Ireland which at the present moment is a disgrace to Europe. What are we called upon to contribute £10,000,000 for? An Army of Occupation of 40,000 soldiers.
    You may tell us that that is our own fault, that the 40,000 soldiers would not be there if they were not needed. Is that the answer which I am to get from the representatives of this nation which went out to fight for the rights of small nationalities and for the fundamental citizenship which is to allow every free people to determine its own destinies? You talk about fighting for freedom and you have an Army of Occupation of 40,000 soldiers in a country which is your neighbour and would be your friend and was your friend until, either by your ignorance or your malignity, or your lack of appreciation, or by any other cause that may be attributed to it, you have placed Ireland to-day in such a position that every time you shriek "liberty" your enemies shriek back at you, "hypocrite." That is the answer you get when you talk about freedom. Ten million pounds additional tax for a nation not only held by an Army of Occupation, but a country where you have suspended all constitutional law and abolished all forms of legal tribunal, where you take your political opponents—and they are my political opponents too—I am not speaking for them, I am speaking for freedom. As I advocated freedom when I was helping you in the War in order that you might fight against Prussian despotism, I am advocating freedom now even for Sinn Feiners, the right to be tried. I do not care a crack of my fingers who the men are or whether they are my opponents. The principle for which I am concerned is the principle of liberty. You have courts-martial to try men for political offences. Trial by jury is abolished. You have the destruction of a great constitutional party that stood here as the friends of England the men who, on every platform in this country for twenty years preached the holy apostolate of good will, friendship and co-operation for all great causes between the Irish and British democracies, and inculcated it in the minds and consciences of their own people. But there is hatred to-day, deep burning hatred between

    477
    Ireland and this country, and what has been your contribution to it? You destroyed the great party that brought friendship and goodwill about and you have paid the price in this country and in Ireland in the hellish fires of mutual hate and mutual distrust. There is not anything wrong in Ireland that has not been of your own creation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman smiles.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I was not smiling at you.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I know he was not smiling at me. I do not object even to the hon. and gallant Gentleman smiling at me, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman smiles because of my description of the situation. I do not know whether the Prime Minister still is his Leader. He neither says "Yes" nor "No." I would imagine that the recent by-election would have determined his mind on that point, but I know that the hon. and gallant Member means that I do use strong language in this House. [Hon. Members: "No."] I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury dissents from that, but the reason that he thinks my language is not strong is not because it is not strong but because it is not as strong as that of his leader the Prime Minister. I never used such violent language against the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary for Ireland as the Prime Minister used against Lord Northcliffe, and Lord Northcliffe used to be the standard bearer and the great exponent of the various policies of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. But the Prime Minister when he uses strong language sometimes means it. I never use strong language unless I do mean it. That is the difference, and the Prime Minister declared at that Table that the malignity—that was the word he used—of the War Office in its treatment of Ireland during the period when Ireland was as strongly pro-war as this country was was perfectly indefensible. The War Office is indefensible. Dublin Castle is indefensible. Anybody who has anything to do with the government of Ireland is indefensible. So indefensible that they generally appoint men to be chief secretaries in Ireland who cannot defend themselves and who get out of their difficulties by throwing themselves upon the mercy of the House.
    Ireland outside political trouble is the most peaceful country in the world.
    478
    [Laughter.] You will get that in the records of the Judges of Assizes, and I notice that these loud smiles which come from the Tory Benches originate from a quarter represented by men who all say that now that England has become Socialist and Bolshevik they want to go over to Ireland which will be a peaceful place in which they can earn their living. Ireland is an absolutely peaceful country except in so far as political troubles are concerned, and you are the authors of all the political troubles in Ireland. But what we in Ireland cannot understand is why the plains of France and Belgium should be drenched with blood in order that small nationalities might be recognised and their liberties conceded and the small nations of Europe, about which even the Tory party know about as much as I do, and that is practically nothing, should have their liberties asserted by this country at such a cost in blood and with such a financial record as was set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when you have one small nationality, Ireland, which you alone control, and you would not give that small nationality without shedding any blood but only by shedding hatreds, prejudice, and bitterness—that is all you would shed—the liberty which you say you have been fighting for in Europe. These are the only things you would shed, and yet, for some reason which I cannot understand, you are determined to go on in this way, and while you are squealing about the tremendous financial burdens which this country will be compelled to bear, you are keeping an army of occupation in Ireland which you could take out of Ireland to-morrow if you adopted those principles of justice and liberty which are the foundation upon which all prosperity and contentment rest.
    You may say probably that this is the only policy we know of. There can be only one justification for any policy in this or anything else, and that is that that policy will succeed in its purpose. Do you mean to tell me that you will end the Irish question by keeping the army of occupation there for one year, or two years, or five years, or twenty years? Do not you know that until the army of occupation disappears the forces will be let loose again, the passions of the people will burst again, the old feeling and bitterness will be there? And if you think that, and you keep the army of occupation there, is this thing to go on for all eternity? That is what I want to know, and yet

    479
    never from a single British representative, from a member of the Government, from the Prime Minister, or from anyone, have we been told what their Irish policy is. I know now what their Irish policy is, and this House will understand what the policy is. It is to add in this Budget £10,000,000 to an already over taxed nation, a nation which a Royal Commission appointed by British financial experts declared twenty-five years ago had been paying £2,500,000 more than its taxable capacity since 1800. The taxation has gone on, and on, and on ever since, and what have we got for it? At the end of 100 years we have, as I have stated, the Constitutional party destroyed, chaos created in the country, Ireland a bye word whenever the name of England and liberty are associated together, and confusion and suspicion and hatred and contempt as the only assets you possess for all your expenditure in this transaction. Even now at this hour perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us. He is the Gentle-who finds the money. He calls the tune and asks us to pay the piper. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us. Yes, he will. It is seldom we get a Minister on that bench who can tell us anything, and perhaps he will now kindly illumine the Committee and give some information to myself, as the only voice, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls it, from Ireland in this House. Perhaps he will tell us, not what the Irish policy of the Government is, but what we are asked to pay this additional £10,000,000 for. This is a business transaction, I understand. I believe the Budget ought to be a business trams action, and I want to know from him, as the head of the business side of the British Empire, what is to be the compensation that Ireland is to get for the £13,000,000 over and above her expenditure which she is paying now, and the other £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 which she is called upon to pay in connection with this Budget? I know he is a Gentleman of vast resources. I know that he was placed in the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer because they wanted a resourceful man at this financially epoch-making stage of the proceedings, and therefore I trust he will enlighten us and tell the House whether he expects Ireland quietly to sit down satisfied that she is to go on allowing this Parliament, without representation, to put additional burdens upon her already overburdened shoulders,
    480
    to add vast sums to the vast sums she has already paid over and above her expenditure, and what it is that we are to pay all this for. Is the army of occupation to continue there? Is trial by jury to disappear, and all forms of constitutional justice no longer to operate? Are the representatives from Ireland to have no voice in the affairs of their own country? You give us, no doubt, a formal right to come here, but that is all. We never had any power here. [Hon. Members: "Oh, oh!"] Even when we carried Home Rule through this House it passed through stormy periods and vicissitudes which no Bill ever had to pass through before. It had to pass three times, through three different Sessions; it had to go to the House of Lords; it survived all these Parliamentary difficulties; it faced three General Elections, and was ratified by the electorate three times; it got the Constitutional assent of the King; and it was never put in operation. It is a scrap of paper, soiled and besmeared with false promises and broken pledges, and yet you ask us to trust you! We will not trust you. The only thing we will allow you to do is to tax us.
    Mr. SUGDEN: The curtain has been rung down on the first act of the greatest drama the world has ever seen, and now the second act is being played out yonder in Versailles, and we here to-night are participating in the opening scenes of Act III. I aver that the question of finance—not only the finances of this country and Empire, but the part which this country and Empire shall play in the great international finance—shall be the greatest and most dominating in the wellbeing not only of this country, but of the Empire of which we form a small and integral part, and that not only shall this play a great factor in our own Empire, but in the great history of the world that is to follow. I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer faces a. grave and Homeric task, a task the like of which never has any man had to face from those benches. Therefore, if the few very simple suggestions that one is permitted to offer to him to-night are worthy of consideration, I ask him to consider them in the light and from the purpose that it is this factor of finance that shall rule and that shall spell the history of this nation and people and the nations of the world in the days that are to come. We know that the essence of taxation is that the burden shall rest equally on those shoulders which are best able to

    481
    bear it, and I believe that the great crusading spirit which led and drew men from every strata and section of our Empire to go out across yonder, and fight for things that were true and noble and brave and strong, may be consolidated in what appears to me equally important, namely, the more prosaic regions of the upkeep of our great Empire. England and Great Britain is a land of homes, and when we think of how finance must play a predominant part in keeping up a proper standard in those homes, and in the future and in the nobler life to come, the question of finance must have a grave and serious influence not only on the Front Bench but on every quarter of the House. Therefore we must think of some of the factors bearing on it. I am amazed to know that there are no accredited figures and no Government or any other economic records in this country which will give us the exact cost and bearing of each of the different types of homes in our land. That is an awful thing. I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he so splendidly gave to us his Budget scheme, but I heard nothing which had a heaving on the alterations to the life of the different sections of the people of this country as regards the taxation which he brought before us. When we consider that 70 per cent. of the inhabitants of this land belong to the humble, unskilled or semi-skilled classes; and when we consider the few figures that are available, as for example, the very illuminating and accurate chart which Mr. Kitching has brought before those men who are studious and who care to consider economics and finance, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise how very important it is that the taxation to be applied to these semi-skilled typed should be appropriate to the humble outlook of these homes.
    But this is not the only section which is not properly taxed: there is the section which largely pays the indirect taxation. This portion of the community also has not been properly considered, and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite calmly and unperturbably announced that though he was now prepared to reduce the Excess Profits Tax to 40 per cent., he even admitted that it was not a proper tax. I would therefore propose to him the operation of a sliding scale in connection with the tax on incomes of this kind, so that it should be possible not only to induce a greater output and a further production, but that it should be possible for all to par-
    482
    ticipate and for each to bear a larger share. I would bring to his notice the fact that the proper establishment of the Exchange on the Continent should also be effected. This should have a bearing, for when we recognise that the Exchange to-day is against us, and that the financial market which in the old days had its centre in London is now going to New York, it is a fearful and terrible consideration as to what way the great social reforms and the reconstructive schemes which are to be placed on the shoulders of the tax payees are to be borne. I would, therefore, suggest to him, when the signing of the Peace Treaty at Versailles is concluded, that he and his Department should conjoin with all sections of the Allies, not only in considering how and in what way the finances of this country shall bear, but how the finances of the Allies and our enemies shall be dealt with, so that our great expansion and the story of the great trial and sacrifice of the men of this country and of this Empire may be worthily seconded, and that in future this country may rise to great heights and sublime power, not only in those sections of life which go to make up the heroic on the fields of battle, but in the more prosaic fields of commerce and industry.
    Lieutenant-Colonel JACKSON: I would like to preface the few remarks I have to make by expressing profound admiration for the very sound and businesslike Budget which the right hon. Gentleman presented to the Committee yesterday. I can imagine no more difficult or no more exacting task than that of compiling and presenting the first Budget after the cessation of hostilities in the most momentous and ruinous War which the world has ever seen, or which I hope it ever will see. I believe a normal Budget, in normal times, is never likely to satisfy everybody, and it might have been expected that a Budget presented at a time like this could scarcely have satisfied anybody. But I think my right hon. Friend may perhaps feel satisfied that, at any rate, he has succeeded in one aspect, and that is that everybody is pleased that it was not worse. I did not rise for the purpose of dealing with any of the more important and greater aspects which are raised in this Budget. I wish to say a few words on an item of taxation which was referred to, in a passing manner, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. It is not one of the most important, but it is one which affects

    483
    hundreds of thousands of individuals in this country, and especially the younger generation, namely, the Entertainments Tax. I must say, at the outset, that I think it is agreed, or should be agreed by all of us, that the Entertainments Tax at this time must be looked upon as a necessary evil, and that it is really a reasonable tax. No one will, or can really object, when he goes to an entertainment, and finds an entertainment there, to paying a tax to go in and see that entertaiment. So far as I am personally concerned, and I expect hon. Members have felt it also, this little extra tax on the price we have to pay to see what is called an entertainment brings home to us very vividly, at times, how very much we pay for what is called an entertainment.
    I would like to deal with this tax from the point of view of how it affects outdoor sports and pastimes. As it stands now, subscriptions which are paid to clubs and societies which charge for admission, can be taxed at the rate of 3s. in 21s. I think the Commissioners have a right to assess the tax at a less amount than that, provided that they are satisfied that the circumstances warrant it. I think I am right in saying that a subscription of, say, £l 1s., which is paid to any cricket, football or agricultural club, has an average of about 2s. taken in tax at the source. This tax is taken, quite regardless of the fact that it is possible, through one circumstance or another, that the individual who paid the subscription may not possibly have an opportunity of getting any entertainment for the 2s. which is taken. I am told, on what I believe to be reliable information, that about one-third of the subscribers to a county cricket club, on an average, do not attend the matches, but if a ticket is issued, and tickets must be issued if a subscription is paid, the tax is paid at the source. I submit that in those circumstances that the Government is really getting money to which they are not' entitled, because the individual has not had any entertainment for the tax which he has had to pay the Government.
    Let me take another instance. I believe it occasionally happens, if I may take my own experience to apply, that hon. Members of this House receive requests for subscriptions to clubs and societies of one kind or another, and, no doubt, they frequently most generously respond. If they receive a ticket for any sum of money—let me take
    484
    a very reasonable sum of a guinea subscription—2s. or 3s. can be docked for too entertainment, which they are supposed to be going to get, although I believe in most instances it is a very remote chance that they get any entertainment from that source. I have been informed during the last few days by the Revenue authorities, from whom, I should like to say, I have received the greatest assistance and the greatest courtesy when I have approached them, as I have done on this particular subject, and they have offered to do anything I suggest provided they do not lose any money by it—I have been informed by them during the last few days that that can be got round by sending this money, not as a subscription, but as a donation, no ticket of admission being issued. I do not think that is widely known. I think it ought to be widely known, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friends who do send those subscriptions, and do get the tickets, would be perfectly prepared to pay a donation. Perhaps this is a tip which they will take, and which they will be grateful for, or, at any rate, the clubs will be grateful for, in the future.
    The worst, and the most serious part, about this tax in connection with our outdoor sports and pastimes, is that it seriously affects the small local clubs, and those are the ones to which I think it is really a matter of great and serious concern. They may have to pay just the same, although they only charge a small entrance fee of two pence or three pence. I am absolutely certain that it was never intended by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Entertainments Tax in 1916, and it is certainly not intended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that anything to do with this tax should hamper or harm or spoil the development of our national sports and pastimes; but we have got to realise the fact that, after four or five years stagnation, they have got tremendous difficulties to face in order really to revive. All their grounds have got out of order. Their implements are damaged. The cost of everything is double, and travelling expenses are 50 percent. up. Therefore, they have got great difficulties to contend with, and undoubtedly this tax, small as it may appear to be, is a serious burden to them, and they are feeling it very much indeed. I do submit this, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be good enough just to consider it: The tax on all subscriptions, as it is

    485
    at the present moment, is really unfair in its application. I believe that the only fair method of dealing with this tax is that subscriptions should be free of it, and it should not be compulsory that the tax should be paid from the source when the subscription is paid. The only fair method, in my view, is that when anyone goes to an entertainment and finds it there, as may not always be the case with a cricket match, for it sometimes rains, and he gets no benefit from it; but when he gets there, and finds the entertainment going on and wants to see it, he should pay that tax, but he should be able to produce his subscription ticket, on which he has paid a guinea, and then pay the 3d. tax to go in.
    I know and realise how difficult it is to differentiate in any way whatever between entertainments. But I would beg my right hon. Friend to consider that there are certain of our great national games which are not played in this country for profit. They never make a halfpenny profit. I do not think you will find a single county club, and I would go so far as to say a single cricket club, which ever distributes anything in the shape of profit. Therefore, there is a very great difference in the actual entertainment on which a universal equal tax is placed. It is because I have received most persistent requests from all over the country that I should bring this matter up on this particular occasion that I have done so. I hope my right hon. Friend will give it consideration, and, when the proper time comes, I hope he may find himself able to meet us. I will even suggest that, allowing a subscription to be free, and that it should not be taxed on a lump sum, he might also make an alternative, and say that for a guinea subscription, if assessed by the Commissioners to carry a 2s. tax, the subscriber should have the alternative of paying the 2s. down, or paying, when he goes to the entertainment, the 3d. tax.
    Mr. LYLE: This has been a day, on the whole, of long speeches, but I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a very few moments, and I want to address myself to one particular part of the Budget, namely, that of Imperial Preference, and I have viewed with very great pleasure the introduction of Imperial Preference. I am one of those who wish to treat our brothers, the Canadians and the Australians and the New Zealanders, better than I wish to treat the Germans.
    486
    Austrians, Turks, and such like. That is a policy which I myself have constantly tried to advocate in a small way, and therefore I wish to make it quite clear that the policy of Imperial Preference as a policy has my hearty support. But I also agree with one of the Chancellor's remarks at the beginning of the introduction of Imperial Preference, wherein he said that we cannot give preference at the expense of the home producer. I think probably what he also meant was that we cannot give preference at the expense of the home producer or, I take it, the home manufacturer. It would be a poor sort of preference which would give an advantage to the Colonies at the expense of the British producer or the British manufacturer If I may say so, I think that that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is doing—that is precisely what he proposes to do in regard to one article, namely, sugar. He proposes to give a preference to the Colonies of one-sixth of the tax on sugar. I want to explain to the Committee that, of course, sugar may come in in two forms—raw and refined. It makes all the difference in the world to us over here as to the form the sugar comes in. If the sugar comes in in the form of raw sugar, it makes no difference to the people for whom I am speaking at the present moment. These are people who are not much heard of because they are numerically a small body, but they are not altogether an insignificant body. I refer to the British sugar refiners.
    It may not be generally known that the British sugar refiners between them deal with about one million tons of sugar per year, turned out from the sugar refiners of this country. If this sugar, which is to come from our Colonies, comes in on a preference of one-sixth, and it is refined sugar, I say—and I do not think anybody will differ from me—that that will absolutely kill the British sugar-refining industry. [An Hon. Member: "Why?"] I do not see how it can be argued in any other way. There is a duty of 25s. 8½d. on the refined article. The Colonial importer, on the contrary, pays 4s. 3½d. I fail to see how, by any process of argument, it can be held that the British refiner can compete with that difference against him. It is quite true that at the present time there is very little refined sugar coming from the West Indies, We hope that they will benefit most from this preference. We are glad to see the preference. We do not want to look at these things in any selfish

    487
    spirit at the present time. But there is such a thing as fair-play, even to a small British industry, and there can only be one result from this. If the West Indies do what they say they are prepared to do, and increase their output until they are able alone to supply the demand of the United Kingdom, then I say that there is no British sugar refiner who can stand against that, and, after all, the industry has struggled against adversity in the past, and had only just before the War began to rear its head again. I would ask the Labour benches to note this fact, that the industry here turns out a million tons of sugar annually, and is employing a good deal or British labour. I would ask the Labour benches to note whom this preference is going to benefit in the case of the West Indies. Who? Coolie labour in the West Indies. If the British manufacturer is cut out by this preference and the British workman is thrown out of work it will be for the benefit of the coolie labour which has been imported into the West Indies.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Are these coolie labourers British subjects?
    Mr. LYLE: They come from India, I believe, and we want to see the West Indies developed, and I suppose they were imported because they were short of labour there. I am merely stating the fact, however, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) may or may not think it the right thing. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the people who benefit by this will be the coolie labourers in the West Indies.
    Sir J. D. REES: Very likely they will not be able to get them. What then?
    Mr. LYLE: I do not know what they will do then. Some other labour, perhaps some of us, will go out—
    An HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. Gentle man aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
    Mr. LYLE: I am really a newcomer to this House, and even though I have a case I am, I think, entitled to state it. I am trying to state it as moderately as I can, and I ask the indulgence of the House if I put it at all strongly. I wish, however, to make it perfectly clear to hon. Members that there is no one more in favour of Imperial Preference than I am, but I say it should not be given at the expense of the home producer or the home manufacturer. I do not use this in any way
    488
    as a stick to beat the Government. I do not wish to beat them. I want to be a supporter of the Government. I am not like some of the hon. Members opposite in that any stick is good enough with which to beat the Government. But I simply bring the matter forward because I think it is worthy of close study from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish to put it to him as a serious warning of what may happen. I say there is a serious danger at the present moment, because the West Indies are developing. We hope they will develop. But if they do develop their production, the only result will be the extinction of sugar refining in this country, unless at the same time a system of protective tariffs is introduced, and that is, in my opinion, the only correct system whereby the British manufacturer is protected, the Colonial gets his preferential rate, and the foreigner pays the full duty. That is the only fair and square way of doing it. It is when you try to do it in the way suggested, and produce these things piecemeal, that you begin to find the difficulties and dangers. I would merely, in finishing, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer very seriously to reconsider this scheme of sugar preference in some way, so that he may give the preference on the raw sugar and not on the refined. Unemployment looms large on the horizon. It would appear that British labour is likely to be displaced by coolie labour. There is a further danger of raw sugar alone being dealt with in the West Indies. In Canada there are some splendidly-equipped sugar refineries. We wish them every success. But what may likely happen there is this: that this raw sugar will go from the West Indies, be imported into Canada, turned out there in the form of refined sugar, pass from the Canadian refineries, and come here with the preference I have named. By so doing we shall have the Canadian refineries cutting out the British refineries, intead of the West Indies cutting them out. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter very careful study and sympathetic consideration, because I fear, as the result of the policy proposed, that the only results can be those I have stated.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I preface my remarks by offering to the Chancellor of the Exchequer my most hearty congratulations on the great personal success he has made in the introduction of his Budget, and especially that part in which he in-

    489
    troduced Imperial Preference in British taxation? Those of us who have been his colleagues in this House for many years felt the emotion which must have moved him on this great occasion which marks a change in the financial, and I hope the Empire, history of our race. The field in which the right hon. Gentleman has decided to operate is so restricted that I regret that his new policy has not been developed over a wider field. If my remarks appear in the nature of criticism, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any personal motive. In the first place, I wish to state that I regret he has found it incumbent upon himself to increase the Estate Duties and the Death Duties, which already press most heavily upon a numerous section of the community.
    10.0 P.M.
    I wish to speak particularly to-night on a subject upon which the House has often patiently heard me before. There has been an enormous increase in the taxes on beer and spirits, and obviously those taxes cannot be collected unless the sums of money which are to flow into the Exchequer are previously collected from the British public. It is a delusion to think that manufacturers can out of any of their own resources find those taxes unless they are previously paid by those who buy their productions. The real effect of these taxes is not understood, and I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has had his own way entirely in the course he has taken in this Budget. What has occurred is this: All classes of the British public want more beer and they want better beer. Under the announcement which has been made they will get an increased quantity of beer, but it is a delusion to think that there will be any substantial improvement in the quality of the beer with the very small increase in the gravity which is now suggested, and that is really playing with the question. The average gravity, 10·55, on which the tax is levied was fixed on the average gravity of the beer in the United Kingdom. Owing to the conditions of the War and the scarcity of material, the Government thought it advisable to fix an average gravity during the' War of 10·32, which is exceedingly low. There was practically no beer saleable before the War at that gravity, and yet brewers had to reduce their beer to that gravity, and the British public have accepted it with a good deal of grumbling as a necessary war measure. They are now expecting
    490
    something very much better. On this question I am able to speak with a sense of responsibility as one who has had thirty years' experience of the brewing trade, and I say that I am sure the British public will be very much disappointed with this new proposal. The public are going to get more beer, but it will still be weak, washy beer. The lowest quality of beer which we were accustomed to sell in Burton before the War was 10.54 or 10.55, and that was sold retail in very many cases at 2½d. a pint, and never higher than 3d. Now the lowest price for beer of that quality is 8d. per pint, and the right hon. Gentleman has put this new taxation on in order to get the last drain out of the producer, who is now to be driven up against the highest limit of this scale. No doubt a little more beer of a higher gravity and better quality can be brewed, but the public will have to pay more for that beer. If they want a 6d. beer they will not get it at 5d. or 4d.,as they hope to do, and they will have to pay 6d. for it.
    I will put the case in another way. If the right hon. Gentleman had decided that in the public interest he would arrange this taxation from other sources he could have adopted a method which would have been a national improvement on this particular process. If it had been decided that the taxes should not be increased but an increased quantity could have been brewed brewers could have charged a penny a pint lower for every quality of beer in the scale, but now every person who wants that better beer has still got to pay the higher price. I do not want to labour the subject because it is very tedious, and it is not easy to understand. What we all do understand is that the British public have got tired of the washy beer during the War, and I am sure they will be much disappointed when they find that the beer is very little better and they will have to pay a higher price for better beer.
    It has been complained in this country that we do not brew as good beer as they do in Ireland, but the Irish brewers have been able to produce beer at 10·45 all the time during the War, which is nearer the standard gravity on which the tax is levied. The people in this country will have still to drink their beer at an average gravity of 10.40, while the breweries in Ireland are allowed to produce a beer of an average gravity of 10.47, and they send a great deal of it into this country in com-

    491
    petition with English-brewed beer. When hon. Members complain of the increased taxation in Ireland, they forget to explain that a large quantity of the beer and stout produced in Ireland is sent into this country, in which case the British drinker pays the tax. This particular method of fixing the gravity and the prices with very high taxation is sweating the beer drinker for the benefit of the Exchequer.
    I am wondering how long the people in this country are going to stand this form of control. It seems to me that the beer drinker is entitled to choose the kind of beer that for wants to drink, just in the same way as the man who has a cellar or who goes into a restaurant is able to choose the bottle of wine which he drinks with his dinner, but apparently that is not the policy of the Government at the present time. We are getting to the end of the period of enforced restriction owing to the lack of material. There is a shortage of material arising out of the conditions the War which will last until the next harvest, but that shortage will disappear, and there is no reason whatever why there should not be unrestricted brewing after the next harvest, say, in October or November. Apparently, these restrictions as to gravity, and as to scales of prices, however, are to endure for another twelve months. It was explained to us by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are considering the form of control which is to be adopted, so evidently it is in the mind of the Government to continue something of this kind indefinitely. Are the people of this country going to put up with it? They ought to know what is going on and to have an opportunity of forming a judgment as to whether they are going to have all these restrictions taken away, and the gravity or strength or quality of the beer improved, so that they can secure the beer which they want.
    I am bound to speak not only on the general question, but also on the particular question as it affects the: industry which I represent. These restrictions on the gravity and quality press most hardly upon the beers which are brewed in Burton and upon the standard beers of the London, Irish, and Scottish breweries. Under these restrictions, they cannot produce that article with which their reputation has been made, upon which their goodwill rests, and upon which the success of their business ultimately depends. We never said anything about these interests during
    492
    the War, but now that the War has come to an end we say that our trade should not be harassed in this way, and that if the public want our productions they should be able to buy them. We do not complain of taxation any more than other brewers, but we do complain of taxation under conditions which hit us more hardly than any other brewers in the United Kingdom, and which hit the public because we are prevented from supplying the public with that which they want and with that they bought freely in the past. I take the case of the London breweries. London stout has been an article of great reputation and has been sold freely throughout the world. Under these restrictions, the London breweries are not able to produce that stout. I am assured by those who know this trade well, and my own knowledge confirms it, that this increase of gravity is merely playing with the question, and that these articles, upon which the reputation of these breweries has been made, upon which their goodwill depends, and upon which their business has been built up, are being seriously menaced.
    Before I sit down I want to call attention to the comparative position of beer and spirits. There has been no doubt a great stimulus to the consumption of spirits in this country. The supply of beer has been raised to about 55 per cent. of the pre-war supply, and the supply of spirits-is about the same, 67 per cent., so that the amount of spirits which is allowed to be sold in comparison with the amount of beer is very considerably higher. That is not all. The taxation on beer has been raised upwards of 800 per cent., while the taxation on spirits has only been raised 238 per cent., or in round figures 240 per cent. The Government restrictions which were necessary up to a point, but which; were probably carried considerably further than was necessary have so deteriorated the quality of the beer which it has been possible to produce that there has been created a craving for spirits among many people who were not accustomed to drink spirits before. The relative taxation amounts to a subsidy on spirit drinking. In this matter I am a rival trader, being a producer of beer, but I think I may fairly say—in fact, it is my duty to say publicly—that the case has been raised whether as a matter of public policy it is desirable to encourage the drinking of spirits at the expense of the drinking of beer. I leave it to the House and the public outside to judge. I do not want to labour

    493
    the point. I merely wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman has hit the brewer who is not a large owner of public-houses very hard by his taxation. He has announced the decision of the Government to continue the system of control and of restrictions on the quality of beer for another twelve months. He has also indicated that the Government are considering whether that should be prolonged indefinitely. He has imposed taxation on the brewing trade up to the hilt. It is obvious that that taxation must be collected from the public before the brewers can pay it into the Exchequer. The question is whether the public will agree to any more of it. They grumble at it a great deal. Will they pay a higher price for their beer? It is a matter of public policy. There are other questions to be dealt with which will have to be considered, but the question which the public will decide is whether the extravagant and extortionate prices exacted by war conditions are to be perpetuated.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise only to express the hope that hon. Gentlemen who have spoken will not think me discourteous if I make no reply—indeed, I do not expect they desire anything like a reply to the very interesting and discursive discussion we have had. I have been invited to discuss the Government policy on various questions—the policy of drink control and the regulation of the liquor traffic in this country. I have been invited to discuss many other questions more immediately relevant to the Budget. But I cannot, at this hour, deal with the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen which were, after all, a reply to, and criticism of, my own observations and proposals. I hope, therefore, they will excuse me if, after speaking for so long a time yesterday, I do not attempt to-night any further rejoinder. What we are attempting to do to-day is to set the lists and define the issues which must be thrashed out in the course of the passage of the Finance Bill through the House of Commons. That applies, of course, to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first (Sir D. Maclean) on the question of Colonial Preference. The right hon. Gentleman's contention is that it is a legitimate cause of offence to foreign Powers and an illegitimate act on the part of any portion of the British Empire to have a more favourable Customs tariff within the Empire than against the stranger. There is no other country in
    494
    the world that would tolerate that doctrine, and if this Budget kills it, as I hope it will, in the British Empire, then the Budget will be justified. I listened with interest to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Arnold) on a subject which he has made his own. I have a great deal to say about that speech. He has had a great deal to say about mine, and I hope he will not think me discourteous if I do not attempt to argue the question now. It is a big subject not to be dismissed in observations occupying a few minutes.
    I would rather, if I may, at this stage deal with one or two quite small matters which have been raised in the course of the discussion and on which I think it would be useful for me to say a word. Perhaps I may make my acknowledgments to the Committee at large for the many kind observations they have made to me. May I congratulate myself that, though hon. Members have naturally found a good deal to criticise, none of them have found it necessary to ask me to explain what I meant? I must say that that is a subject of some satisfaction.
    My hon. Friend who spoke last at one stage put his own case as if it were a typical case, and at another stage he quite frankly admitted that it was not. The Burton case is typical of a small part only of the brewing community. It is not part of the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as such to limit the consumption of beer or to fix the gravity at which beer may be brewed, except so far as that may be necessary as a measure for the collection of revenue. In so far as we do either of these things they are done not as a Budget measure on the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they are done as a Cabinet measure with quite different social considerations. I would beg my hon. Friend not to misunderstand me. I am not dissociating myself from my Cabinet responsibility, I aim only trying to distinguish between that which is really part of the Budget and that which is part of the general policy of His Majesty's Government and not a special feature of the Budget, though, of course, it affects that and it affects the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals. When the Cabinet fixes a limit to the amount of beer which may be brewed it fixes a limit to the taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can impose. That affects him as well as the brewer. But when my hon. Friend says

    495
    that in raising the average gravity from 1032 to 1040 we have done nothing to meet the public demand for beer, or to meet the grievance which he and others have expressed on behalf of the English brewers, I beg leave to part company with him. The extent to which that increase of average gravity improves the average beer depends upon how the brewers use the liberty that is left to them. The quality of the beer will, after all, within the wide limits set by the Government, be settled by what the brewers think is in their own interests, by what they think the public is most likely to demand from them, and what they therefore brew.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Lyle) spoke with special reference to sugar refinery in this country. I will just make one observation on that. I have, as he knows, carefully considered this question. I consulted also with the Board of Trade about it. He himself admits that there is no immediate danger. What he is asking me to consider is something which may happen, not now but at some future time. I grant that something may happen at some future time Which may require other measures, but I do not think they are required now, and we had better wait and see what does happen before we alter the decision which I ventured to propose to the Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Lieutenant-Colonel Jackson) spoke about cricket and the Entertainments Tax and the point he raised applies to other associations and institutions as well as cricket. The point was, that we take the tax on annual subscriptions which give the right of entrance and which may not be used. It is open to anybody, as he himself has discovered, if the subscriber is willing to take a receipt in exchange for his donation instead of the right of entry he escapes the tax, but I am quite ready to consider the suggestion which my hon. Friend made, that subscriptions should be taxed only in proportion to the use made of them, and if he could arrange with some of his friends to get together representatives of the societies or clubs concerned and would confer with the Revenue authorities we might, perhaps, arrive at some solution on that point. Anyhow, I recognise that there is a hardship and a cause of complaint, and I am anxious to remedy it.
    I will mention one other subject. I listened with great interest and admira-
    496
    tion to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker). His speeches never fail to interest me, and there was a geniality about the criticism which he displayed which made his speech particularly attractive. He dwelt, as indeed did some other Members, on the need for economy. He put his finger on the weakest point, which is not the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Penistone referred to the taxation and then spoke of expenditure of which he was in favour. I have yet to find the Member of this House who is in favour of and will support economy in that sphere of public activity in which he is most interested. Everybody is in favour of economy on other people's hobbies but never on their own. I am overwhelmed with suggestions from correspondents of how I could tax other people who use things which my correspondent does not like, as for instance, having animals which my correspondent finds annoy him. Suggestions come from married gentlemen for taxing bachelors and from bachelors for taxing spinsters, and from everybody to tax somebody else. I want to find the hon. Member who will help me and the Government by suggesting that the time has come for a halt in that particular subject he is always pressing and who will also suggest that the particular form or source from which he derives his income is capable of tax-bearing and ought to bear larger taxation. The hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley) offered himself as a shining example of this form of sacrifice. I would invite hon. Members, when they resume the discussion of the Budget, to suggest economies and taxes which affect themselves instead of proposing always to economise and to tax someone else.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in. paragraph (b), after the word "eighteen," to insert the words,
    "Provided that if either a husband or a wife who are living together claims to be separately assessed for purposes of Income Tax, neither of them shall be liable to pay a larger sum in respect of Income Tax than they would be liable to pay if they were each unmarried."
    It is unusual to propose an Amendment to a Budget Resolution, and I would not think of doing so if I did not feel that a very great principle was involved, the principle, I mean, that married women have a right to absolute control over their own property. In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel

    497
    revived the Income Tax, there was a flat rate of Income Tax, and so it did not very much matter that the incomes should he treated as joint for the purposes of Income Tax. In that year also married women had no control over their property at all. They were treated as chattels for the purposes of property. They were not the owners of their property, and they had no control over it. Directly they became married, the whole of their property was transferred ipso facto to the husband. That naturally was regarded as an intolerable position, and in 1882 the Married Women's Property Act was passed, under which a woman was at last made absolute owner, and given absolute control over the property she possessed at the time of her marriage. Lest there should be any doubt in anyone's mind, I will read the few words that gave her tins power—
    "Every woman who marries after the commencement of this Act shall be entitled to have and to hold as her separate property all the real and personal property which shall belong to her at the time of marriage or shall be required by or devolve upon her after marriage."
    Those words are perfectly clear. The present system of Income Tax undermines that great charter which was given to women in 1882. At present a wife's income is treated as part of her husband's income, and the property in the income to that extent is handed over to her husband. I have here the Consolidated Income Tax Act which came into force about a fortnight ago, and on page 201 there is this sentence:
    The profits of a married woman living with her husband shall be deemed to be the profits of the husband and shall be assessed and charged in his name and not in her name or in the name of her trustee."
    The hardship is all the greater because the tax is heavily and steeply graduated, and also the Income Tax has been enormously increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not treat Death Duties on the same principle. When a man and woman are married and the woman dies, the Exchequer naturally wants to get some tax and it treats the property of the wife as separate in order to get the tax. When they are living together as husband and wife the Exchequer wants to get its tax and it treats the income as joint for the purpose of getting the taxes. When the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to receive a deputation the other day one of his chief points was that there was no differentiation to-day under the present law between husband
    498
    and wife. I am quite sure that he did not in the least mean to mislead the deputation, but if I may say so, with great respect that really is not correct. There is a differentiation between the husband and wife. If the wife wants to obtain repayment of Income Tax she has to make a special claim for repayment. She has to claim specially to be separately assessed. If the husband wants to reclaim Income Tax separately he has to make no claim, and if neither of them make any claim the whole repayment in respect of husband and wife is made to the husband. It is only in the wife's case that a special claim has to be made for repayment of Income Tax.
    I submit that the present Income Tax law ought to be brought into conformity with the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882. That Act is the great charter for the married woman. It is just as much a charter for the married woman as Magna Charta was the charter for British liberties in the past, and I do not think the Income Tax authorities have any right to come in and filch away rights that were given to women under that Act. It is not only a case of treating married women as absolute owners of their prospects, but the present law is a penalty upon marriage as such, and it is not only a penalty upon the rich, but it is a penalty upon the poor. I will give three illustrations of what I mean. Take a man who has an income from wages of £90 a year, and a woman who has an income from house property of £90 a year. They pay no Income Tax before they are married, because they are below the Income Tax level. They may be living together unmarried and enjoying a joint income of £180 a year, and they pay no tax; but directly they marry, and they still have their joint income of £180 a year, or a little over £3 a week, they have to pay a tax of five guineas a year, or nearly a week and a half's income. Take another case. Take a man who has an income of £120 a year from wages, and a woman who has £80 a year from, say, cottage property. Before marriage neither of these people pay any Income Tax, although they may be living together and having all the advantages, unmarried, of a joint income of £200 a year. Directly they marry they pay a tax of £8 5s. on their income, which is under £4 a week. My final illustration is a man who has an earned income of £250 and a woman who has an income, say from dividends, of £100 a year. Before marriage the man pays on his income £14 2s. 6d. and the woman pays nothing.

    499
    Directly they marry they have a joint income of £350 a year, or a little under £7 a week, and they have to pay a tax of £26 16s. 3d., or a penalty on marriage of £12 3s. 9d.
    On the other hand, suppose two sisters live together, with a joint income on the Income Tax level, they do not pay any Income Tax. A father and son living together do not pay it. A man and woman living together, unmarried, do not pay it. An aunt and niece do not pay. The only time it is paid is when a man and woman choose to join themselves in a legal marriage. Then the State steps in and puts a penalty tax on that legal bond. My right hon. Friend will not think that I am trying to score a point against anybody on that bench if I refer to something which was said the other day in the Debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon). The representative of the Treasury used these words:
    "I agree freely as an individual and as a married man that there is a great deal to be said for the case presented to-night. It has always been an intolerable anomaly to feel that so far as taxation was concerned it would be cheaper to live with a woman who was not your wife than with a woman who was. That is an intolerable anomaly."
    That is the opinion of every reasonable man throughout the country. The quotation is sufficient, without any further words of mine. It is an intolerable anomaly. The right hon. Gentleman, when he received the deputation the other day, and several times in this House, has said that he cannot do anything because the Royal Commission was sitting. I think that about three days ago he told us that the chairman hoped that the Commission would report in time for the various Income Tax reforms to be incorporated in the Budget for 1920. I took the trouble the other day to look up the periods for which Royal Commissions have sat. I chose four important instances, and they gave three results—the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales was appointed on the 1st of May, 1907, and reported on the 1st November, 1910—over three years later. The Royal Commission on University Education was appointed on 26th May, 1910, and reported on 27th March, 1913, after just under three years. The Royal Commission on Divorce took exactly three years, and the Royal Commission on the Poor Law took three years and two months.
    Does my right hon. Friend really believe that this Royal Commission on the
    500
    vast question of the Income Tax is going to be able to report in time for various reforms to be made in the Budget of 1920? All this time these married women are to be subject to what the representative of the Government himself said the other day was an intolerable anomaly. The game representative told us that it was very difficult to disentangle the question of the married women's Income Tax from other questions of Income Tax. It was not in the least difficult to disentangle the question of hours and wages in mines. The reason was because the miners are organised. The transport workers and railway workers are organised. The unfortunate married women are not well organised, and therefore my hon. Friend told us that it was impossible to disentangle this question. He told the deputation, too, that it would cost a great deal of money. The cost of this is the measure of the present injustice. If he says that it is going to be a very heavy cost, then the reply is that it is a very heavy burden upon married people. And, after all, he can afford to pay over £1,000,000 a week to people who ought to be working at the present moment, and if he can afford to do that he can afford to remove this penalty on marriage. He may tell us that if he takes the tax off it will benefit the rich, but I think I have shown that the present tax is a heavy burden on the comparatively poor, and if he wants to meet the cost he can quite easily do so by an equivalent tax on higher-rated incomes. He may also tell us that evasions are certain to take place, that the wife or the husband may hand over their property the one to the other, in order to escape the duty, but I do not believe that is any difficulty at all. They can even now hand over their property to their children, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, and I am sure the Treasury officials will agree, that very few parents at the present time hand over their property to their children in order to escape Income Tax. If he would like a precedent, may I give him the precedent of the Death Duties, where, if property is handed over within three years of death, the tax is still paid, and he could very easily arrange that after marriage, if property is handed over within, say, three, eight, or ten years, the tax should be paid by the person owning the handed-over property. But, after all, these are mere questions of administration, difficulties that can easily be surmounted by a little goodwill on the part of the Chan-

    501
    cellor of the Exchequer, and certainly absolutely paltry difficulties in comparison with the great principle that marriage ought to be encouraged, especially at the present moment, and that women ought to have absolute control over their own property. No one wants to make difficulties for my right hon. Friend or for the Treasury or to try and score personal points on this subject as against the Treasury, but I feel that a vital principle is at stake. I feel that very strongly indeed, and I feel that the rights of married women under a great charter are at the present moment being undermined by the Income Tax authorities.
    Major TRYON: I rise very briefly to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I should like to begin by thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very long, patient, and careful hearing which he gave to the deputation, including a number of women, which went to him on this important subject. We do not propose to lessen the amount of revenue available to the country, nor do we propose to increase it. We simply propose a readjustment of the Income Tax in a way which would be much more fair as between married people and single people.
    In other words, it is perfectly clear that the single people will have to pay more Income Tax in order to make up the loss which is necessitated by doing justice to those who are married. It is not the case that it will be the rich who will benefit from this change. The greater number of those who will benefit will be people with quite small incomes, and many with incomes so small that they would not pay Income Tax at all were it not for the exceedingly unjust arrangement by which the income of the wife is added to that of the husband, thus bringing the total income within the limit, although the incomes separately are so small that they would not pay tax. There are thousands of cases like that. We do not propose to benefit the rich as against the poor, and a vast number of those who would benefit would be poor people. But, taking a case amongst the rich I will give an example to show the kind of thing that would happen amongst the higher incomes. You might have, living in three houses next each other, a bachelor, in one house, with £2,400 a year; a spinster, in the next house, with £2,400 a year, and in the third house, a husband and wife with £1,300 a year each, and whose united income comes
    502
    to £2,600 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the husband and wife must have their incomes added together. In effect, he says, "Here is a very large income. These people have £2,600 a year; they must pay Super-tax, which the person with £2,400 a year gets off." Now it seems to me perfectly possible that within the range of these four incomes, amounting altogether to £7,400 a year, so to arrange that the bachelor and the spinster would pay more, and the married people would pay less, while the country would get exactly the same amount. This in stance shows that there would be no advantage in the rate against the poor, but that the whole difference would be between those who are married and those who are not married.
    Let me take an example which has not been put before. We might have had at the last Election, and we certainly shall have in future Elections, the chance of a husband and wife both sitting in the House of Commons, and both drawing £400 a year. That the country considers these people to be two persons is shown by its paying both of them £400 a year, but then down comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer who adds their incomes together, and says, "Here is a large income of £800 a year on which you might pay a higher tax." After the exceedingly witty remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the feelings of every body with regard to their own In come Tax, I may perhaps transfer my remarks to the Treasury Bench I hope our present Chancellor may long hold his office, but there may come a time when this man may sit there and his wife may also hold office and draw £5,000 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days will presumably have £5,000 a year, and his wife, holding office, may draw another £5,000. The Chancellor will have to add those two incomes together, and then there will be an income of £10,000 a year, on which the Chancellor will have to pay. If the Income Tax runs to about 11s. in the £, he will at that rate he paying more than his own personal income.
    I would also put this matter forward from the point of view of constitutional government. We have had an election at which this question was before this country. Every hon. Member will agree that there was great feeling throughout the country in favour of this change being made. I am not putting it forward as a result of the last election, for in my own.

    503
    Constituency both I and the Liberal Member who previously represented it have been urging this change for the last ten years. It would be a great pleasure to me if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, in addition to the magnificent change which he has made in reference to Imperial taxation, add to it a great act of justice in reference to home taxation.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that my hon. Friends will permit me, on this occasion, to deal as briefly with the subject as they have just done I am sure that this is not the real occasion on which to join serious issue on a large point of policy. It had much better be done on the Finance Bill. Under any circumstances, the matter would have to be discussed on the Finance Bill, and that is really the right place to discuss it In the simplicity of my heart, I readily accepted the suggestion of hon. Gentlemen that I should receive a deputation on this subject some weeks ago, and when they asked whether they might be accompanied by ladies I, of course, gave way to their wishes, but I did not gather that their principal object in seeking an interview with me a few weeks ago was to put me through a preliminary canter to find out what were the arguments they would have to answer. That, at any rate, was the sole use they made of the interview. My hon. Friend who moved this Motion wishes to establish a great principle. He wishes to establish the principle—that is his main and chief argument—that married women shall have the absolute right to control their own property. I place no obstacle in his way. I do not challenge the right of married women to control their own property, and if it be the general wish of married women that each of them should be assessed separately from their husband, we can so assess them. My own conviction is that the great bulk of married women would be pretty much annoyed to be bothered with the Inland Revenue papers. [Hon. Members: "No!"] That is my own impression. I put it no higher. The great bulk of married women will not wish to be troubled by the Inland Revenue, and are content—and more than content—to leave this matter to their husbands. But there is no difficulty about it. If they want to be asssessed separately, they can be. Whether they are separately assessed or not there is no challenge to their right of controlling their own
    504
    property or the enjoyment of their own property That is not the question here at all. The question is, shall married people—men and women, and not women only—be rated according to their joint income or according to their separate income? It is not a question whether a married woman shall have control of her own property, or a question of whether she shall receive a separate notice from the Inland Revenue and make a separate return. The question is whether, when there are married people living together, the rate on, which the Income Tax is charged shall be the rate applicable to the joint income of the two, or the rate applicable to the incomes separately. That is my difficulty. It is not a sex question, or a question of married women's property rights or married women's liberty. It is neither. It is a question of whether married people, be they male or female, are treated fairly as compared with other taxpayers. That is a very large question. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) says: "Tax the bachelors." Why the bachelors? One of the ladies of the deputation said: "Tax the unmarried people." I said that would mean spinsters as well as bachelors, and she hastily said she meant nothing. The lady said she was not authorised to make any suggestion. "But why should you not tax the bachelor?" it may be asked. Because he is not married! That is not the reason. If you do it for that, will you excuse him if he can show that he has offered himself? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!]—and—I tremble to say it—had the good fortune to be refused? You must then go further. You must turn to the offending lady who has refused, and she may say that she has married someone else. Are you then to re-transfer the charge? And to whom? To the man who will not marry or to the lady who has refused him the opportunity? But I do not want to make fun of this. There is a serious argument.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is not in the Amendment; there is no proposal to tax bachelors.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I know there is not. There is no constructive proposal.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is not our proposal.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is my business, and the hon. Gentleman will permit

    505
    me, to examine the alternative. Frankly, I personally do not agree that the number is very large that is affected by the operations of the present law. I do not think that there is a grievance on anything like the scale suggested, though I am quite ready to admit there may be one as between married people themselves. What would be the result of the operation of the proposal of my hon. Friend? £50,000,000 of revenue might go at once—and very quickly! Take it at £20,000,000. If I lose that I must find other means to raise it. Therefore, I come to examine the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton. Tax the bachelors! The bachelor may say, "I do not marry, not because I do not want to, but because my doctor has told me that I should not." But, it is argued, you do not tax him because he does not marry, but because in proportion to his means he has fewer outgoings. That is the real point. But against this should be placed the fact that men do not marry, or do not marry till late in life, because they have relatives dependent upon them, and so they sacrifice their own happiness in life from a sense of duty. It is not an easy thing to transfer the burden from the married person, who may have much more than the bachelor or the spinster having regard to the claims the latter may have. My right hon. Friend, foreseeing these difficulties, says, "put it on everybody." Is it the desire of the House that I should modify this tax by adding 6d. to the Income Tax with the prospect that in the near future, with the rearrangement which could be made, the increase would be very much greater?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the suggestion that he should get the cost out of the higher incomes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a standard Income Tax rate, but that does not mean that everybody pays it. I could not test the cases which the hon. Gentleman gave, but I should be surprised if he was accurate as to the tax paid if I rightly heard his figures; but I shall see them in the Official Report. At any rate, I could deal with the present tax arrangement, a combination of the two; but what is the concomitant? The law in respect of a wife is more favourable to a married couple than a separate assessment of husband and wife's income without any relation to the fact that they are married.
    506
    Let me say to the Committee—and it is the last thing I will say to-night, because we are not really fighting this matter to night—that in the small income cases which my hon. Friend takes there cannot be the higher relief up to the point at which you get the maximum by their separation. The larger will be the profit according to the wealth of the two parties. In the case of the great bulk of the small incomes there will be only their share of the additional charge which is to be made in consequence of the change.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am very disappointed with the answer of my right hon. Friend, and I am more disappointed at the way in which he has treated this question. I suppose there is a great temptation to make fun on a question of this sort, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has gained anything by that. I understand, however, that there is a technical difficulty about taking a Division, because if we do that it will be ruled more or less out of order on the Finance Bill, as a new Clause, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: There are two or three points which I am very anxious to bring before the Committee. I also wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the question of Colonial Preference. I think I can claim to have some right to speak on this subject. In the first place, I resided as a colonist for several years in New Zealand and Australia, and, in the second place, I had the honour to be one of the earliest supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's father when he brought in the question of Colonial Preference in the first instance. There are two or three criticisms which I feel bound to make with regard to the Budget, but as they have already been dealt with very ably by other hon. Members, I shall simply state them without repeating the arguments. In the first place, there is the question of the immediate or very speedy removal of the restrictions upon trade, and the reduction as soon as possible of all unproductive expenditure. I look upon Colonial Preference as one of the most extreme importance. We are faced with an enormous debt, contracted during this War, and it is

    507
    the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the best possible means of relieving the strain upon this nation. It was not a war only between England and the Central Powers, but between the British Empire and the Central Powers, and, when we are considering the means by which the money can be found to pay the great debt which we have contracted, we must look to the future help of the Colonies in assisting us to meet our liabilities. There is a policy of construction and a policy of consumption which have been brought before the House during the last two days. The policy of my hon. Friend on my right has not been one of construction but of consuming the wealth of the nation out of somebody else's pocket to defray the cost of the War. I often wonder whether Members of this House are aware—I know that a great many people in the country are not—of the enormous help which can be furnished by the Colonies if we help them to develop to their utmost capacity. Do many Members, I wonder, realise that the area of Australia is equal to that of the whole of the countries of Europe, excepting Russia—and a great part of Russia would be included—and that the population of that vast continent is only 5,000,000, and only amounts to two persons per square mile. The population of New Zealand, which is peculiarly suitable for settlement by the English people, only amounts to one million. The resources of Australia and New Zealand are enormous. We had the question raised to-day as to whether sugar, tea, coffee, and so on, could be supplied within the British Empire. Of course, they can. Queensland, New South Wales, Mauritius and many parts of our Empire can supply us with all our needs. The profits coming into the pockets of our own Colonial people will enable them and encourage them to increase their population, let us say in Australia from 5,000,000 to 50,000,000. I wish I could get Members to realise what an enormous sum could be raised by our Colonies for the liquidation of our War debt in a very few years from the present time if we treat them as we ought to do and give them a slight preference over other countries and thus enable them to develop their resources. This is one point I should like to bring forward. It is of very great importance to this country. I have had the privilege during the last few months of putting up
    508
    at my own home convalescent Australian and New Zealand officers and occasionally Canadians and Americans. The one thing that strikes them more than any other is the enormous preponderance of the rural populations in England over the urban populations, as compared with the immense preponderance of urban populations over rural populations in America and Canada and in our Australian Colonies. I have had the advantage of travelling in Canada and living in Australia. Time after time I have heard arguments brought forward in favour of legislation to induce people to live in the country, instead of in the towns. In Australia four-fifths of the population live in the towns, and, in spite of all legislation there to induce them to go into the country, it has been unavailing. I have discussed it very fully with those resident in America, Canada, and Australia, and I have come to the conclusion—and they agree with me—that the reason why they get populations to live in the country in England is that life in the country here is so much more attractive than it is in other countries, where it is almost ugly. I am, therefore, quite certain that nothing could be a greater mistake than to increase the Death Duties. They are already too high. They ought rather to be reduced. You are going to drive all the landowners of any size out of the country into the towns You are going to reduce the attractions to live in the country—hunting, shooting, farming, and so on—and if the landowners go then the doctor, the solicitor, and the land agent will follow, and you will denude the country of its population and drive them into the towns, which is not an advantage either to the country or to the towns. I wish to make a very strong protest on this point. From my knowledge of the country and my personal experience, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether instead of increasing Death Duties, the receipts from which will be infinitesimal, he cannot adopt the other course, especially as the evil results to the country will be so great. Having made that protest I wish to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget as a whole, I would, however, ask him to consider the points which have been put before him, to as speedily as possible get rid of the restrictions on trade, and to reduce unnecessary expenditure on Government Departments. Then there is the question of the Beer and Spirit

    509
    Duties. There is a strong feeling on this subject in my own Constituency, which is not far from that of the right hon. Gentleman, and I can only say that if the duties are not reduced instead of being increased there will be very great dissatisfaction. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter further consideration and see if he cannot give better beer at lower prices instead of increasing them—a proposal which is causing the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the country at the present moment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, Etc., [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, Town Planning, and the acquisition of Small Dwellings, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—

  (a) when acting in the place of local authorities or county councils in preparing and carrying out schemes under such Act;

  (b) in recouping losses, incurred by local authorities and county councils; and

  (c) in contributing to costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts and other persons."

  Resolution read a second time.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I notice that there are some Amendments on the Paper. If hon. Members desire to move them, they must do so before I put the Question.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have three Amendments on the Paper, but at this late hour I do not think it is fair to keep the House up. Therefore I propose to move them in Committee upstairs.
  Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I have one Amendment on the Paper, but now that the Regulations have been published the object of my Amendment is already met; therefore I do not move.
  Major Earl WINTERTONrose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the Noble Lord propose to move an Amendment?
  Earl WINTERTON: No; I wish to speak on the main Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Earl WINTERTON: I desire to speak on what is the rather inconvenient and ancient way of taking very important Financial Resolutions at this hour of night. I am glad to have the support of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) who, like myself, has sat up many nights in former Parliaments protesting against the action of the then Government in taking these Resolutions at a late hour of the night. I should be inconsistent if I allowed this opportunity to pass without entering a mild protest against the return to this ancient and inconvenient habit. Resolutions of this kind can only be debated within very narrow limits, therefore I shall be brief. I understand, although I am not a member of the Committee upstairs, that the main point of the Bill is contained in the Financial Resolution, and that at the present time there is a good deal of difference of opinion in the country as to the amount the Government and the local authorities respectively should find. That is an additional argument against taking a Resolution of this kind at this hour of the night. Although one appreciates the attitude adopted by the two hon. Members opposite in withdrawing their Amendment, I must protest against their return to the old custom. I would remind my Noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that the experience we have bad hitherto in this House is not that the Parliamentary mill has been grinding out legislation too slowly, but rather that under the new system of Committees we are getting through our legislation very much quicker than anyone expected at the beginning of the Session. I am sorry we are getting back to this bad, and I would almost add rotten, system of taking these Financial Resolutions late at night, and of smuggling them through, especially after the important Debate we have had to-day. I shall not divide against the Resolution and merely wish to enter my protest.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I am very glad to hear what my Noble Friend has said. If those who work with him in that part of the House will accept a tribute of gratitude from me, I desire to tender it to them. They have alone almost on that side of the House supported myself and others in maintaining some of the best traditions of the House in regard to these

  511
  matters. I do join with him in the protest which he has made against taking very important financial business at this hour of the night. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill for the ready compliance which he has shown in the request which we made for the issue of a White Paper on this subject. I had an opportunity to-day of looking it through, and, so far as I can judge, I hope it will be a model of what these White Papers should be. Obviously, a great deal of care has been taken with it, and I desire to thank him for the action he has taken. This is the first time this House has been placed in possession of anything like real information on what has now become a vital subject in the progress of these Bills. I think the Report stage, at any rate, is not the really appropriate time for the discussion of a Money Resolution. It was by arrangement that the White Paper was for the first time issued. I hope my Noble Friend and others who associate them-selves with him will join with me, certainly not in any obstruction, but in very careful examination of the financial proposals of these Resolutions at the proper stage, and that is the Committee stage. So far as I am concerned, I do not wish to say any more to-night with regard to this matter. The Committee, I understand, have made remarkable progress upstairs and are being held up for lack of this Resolution. I trust that hon. Members who have got Amendments down will see that they are adequately dealt with upstairs. I make no opposition whatever to the progress of this stage of the Bill.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): With regard to the course taken by my hon. Friends opposite, I am advised that the important matters which they wish to
  512
  raise on their Amendments can be taken more appropriately upstairs in Committee. In regard to the point made by the Noble Lord, I am sure there has been no desire to rush or smuggle through—as he calls it—this Resolution at a late hour to-night. We had hoped to get it through at a much earlier period. We took, as my right hon. Friend has said, very special care in connection with this by placing the House in possession of the fullest information we could, and I may say one of my chief officers and several assistants sacrificed the whole of the Easter holiday in order to prepare this White Paper. It was right it should be done, and I am sure if my Noble Friend had the opportunity of studying this somewhat elaborate Paper, the last thing he would suggest would be—
  Earl WINTERTON: I protested not against this particular proposal, but against the system of taking business at this hour of the night.
  Dr. ADDISON: I will say no more on that point. The Committee has made excellent progress, and until we get this Resolution we cannot move further, and I hope the House will agree to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (RE-ORGANISATION).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (RE-ORGANISATION).
INCOME TAX.
  ENGLISH SEWING COTTON COMPANY (PENSION FUND).
  ENGLISH SEWING COTTON COMPANY (PENSION FUND).
  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS (AGE LIMIT).
  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS (AGE LIMIT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SALMON.
  SALMON.
  MEAT (ALLOCATION).
  MEAT (ALLOCATION).
  SPIRITS.
  SPIRITS.
  NAVAL OFFICERS (BONUS).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (BONUS).
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, HASLAR.
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, HASLAR.
  H.M.S. "GLATTON."
  H.M.S. "GLATTON."
  ADMIRAL JERRAM'S REPORT.
  ADMIRAL JERRAM'S REPORT.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "DUNDEE."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "DUNDEE."
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE).
DEMOBILISATION.
  ROYAL MARINES.
  ROYAL MARINES.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SIGNALLERS.
  SIGNALLERS.
  PROCEDURE.
  PROCEDURE.
  MEN OVER FORTY.
  MEN OVER FORTY.
  DEMOBILISERS.
  DEMOBILISERS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS
  MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
  RUSSIAN RELIEF FORCE (KIT).
  RUSSIAN RELIEF FORCE (KIT).
  LONG MOOR CAMP (BARRACK LABOURERS).
  LONG MOOR CAMP (BARRACK LABOURERS).
  REQUISITIONED BUILDINGS (REPAIRS).
  REQUISITIONED BUILDINGS (REPAIRS).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
  LEICESTER SCHOOL (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  LEICESTER SCHOOL (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  COLOURED LABOUR (REPATRIATION).
  COLOURED LABOUR (REPATRIATION).
  100th BRIGADE, ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
  100th BRIGADE, ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
  TROOPS ABROAD (LITERATURE).
  TROOPS ABROAD (LITERATURE).
  "COLOGNE POST" (ADVERTISEMENTS).
  "COLOGNE POST" (ADVERTISEMENTS).
  VOLUNTARY RECRUITING.
  VOLUNTARY RECRUITING.
  BEDFORDSHIRE TRANSPORT BATTALION, WEYMOUTH.
  BEDFORDSHIRE TRANSPORT BATTALION, WEYMOUTH.
  WHITE TROOPS, MESOPOTAMIA.
  WHITE TROOPS, MESOPOTAMIA.
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (PRIVATE RAWLINGS).
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (PRIVATE RAWLINGS).
  5th BATTALION ROYAL FUSILIERS (PRIVATE TISDALL).
  5th BATTALION ROYAL FUSILIERS (PRIVATE TISDALL).
  EXPLOSIVES STORES, DINAS MAWDDWY (GUARD)
  EXPLOSIVES STORES, DINAS MAWDDWY (GUARD)
  ARMY PENSIONS (FORFEITURE OF RIGHTS).
  ARMY PENSIONS (FORFEITURE OF RIGHTS).
  OFFICERS' DISPERSAL UNIT, SLOANE STREET.
  OFFICERS' DISPERSAL UNIT, SLOANE STREET.
HOUSING.
  ARMY HUTS (PURCHASE).
  ARMY HUTS (PURCHASE).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS (DELAYS).
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS (DELAYS).
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, HARROGATE.
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, HARROGATE.
  3/5TH WEST RIDING REGIMENT (PRIVATE CROSSLEY).
  3/5TH WEST RIDING REGIMENT (PRIVATE CROSSLEY).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (DISCHARGE GRATUITIES).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (DISCHARGE GRATUITIES).
  SOLDIERS' GRATUITIES.
  SOLDIERS' GRATUITIES.
  ACTING PAYMASTERS (GRATUITY).
  ACTING PAYMASTERS (GRATUITY).
  MAJORS (PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT).
  MAJORS (PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (GRATUITY).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (GRATUITY).
  SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY.
  SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY.
  217TH DIVISION LABOUR CORPS.
  217TH DIVISION LABOUR CORPS.
  DISPERSAL BOARDS (MEDICAL MEN).
  DISPERSAL BOARDS (MEDICAL MEN).
  MILITARY HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, WEST HAM.
  MILITARY HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, WEST HAM.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (SURGICAL APPLIANCES).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (SURGICAL APPLIANCES).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MOTOR-CARS.
  MOTOR-CARS.
  DISMANTLING AEROPLANES, FARNBOROUGH.
  DISMANTLING AEROPLANES, FARNBOROUGH.
  AEROPLANE CONSTRUCTION (CYPRESS).
  AEROPLANE CONSTRUCTION (CYPRESS).
  CIVIL FLYING.
  CIVIL FLYING.
  AIR ROUTES (PORTSMOUTH).
  AIR ROUTES (PORTSMOUTH).
  AEROPLANE WINGS (DOPE RECOVERY).
  AEROPLANE WINGS (DOPE RECOVERY).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES, LEICESTER.
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES, LEICESTER.
  LOCAL ELECTION LITERATURE (POSTAGE).
  LOCAL ELECTION LITERATURE (POSTAGE).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
INDIA.
  INDENTURED WOMEN.
  INDENTURED WOMEN.
  RIOTS.
  RIOTS.
  RETIRED OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  INTERNED PERSONS.
  INTERNED PERSONS.
  MATABELELAND.
  MATABELELAND.
  RELIEVING OFFICER, THRAPSTON (WAR BONUS).
  RELIEVING OFFICER, THRAPSTON (WAR BONUS).
  FEVER HOSPITAL, FAZAKERLEY.
  FEVER HOSPITAL, FAZAKERLEY.
  INFECTIOUS CASES (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  INFECTIOUS CASES (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (ARMY SERVICE).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (ARMY SERVICE).
  LONDON ROAD, KEW BRIDGE, BRENTFORD.
  LONDON ROAD, KEW BRIDGE, BRENTFORD.
  PETROL.
  PETROL.
  HAYWARD'S HEATH STATION.
  HAYWARD'S HEATH STATION.
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (PROMOTION).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (PROMOTION).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  EDINBURGH POST OFFICE (SECRETARY).
  EDINBURGH POST OFFICE (SECRETARY).
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE, SCOTLAND,
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE, SCOTLAND,
  FARM SETTLEMENT, PATRINGTON.
  FARM SETTLEMENT, PATRINGTON.
  AGRICULTURAL WORK (WITHDRAWAL OF SOLDIERS).
  AGRICULTURAL WORK (WITHDRAWAL OF SOLDIERS).
  AGRICULTURE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  AGRICULTURE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  ARTIFICIAL FERTILISERS (PRICES).
  ARTIFICIAL FERTILISERS (PRICES).
  BRITISH PRISONERS (RUSSIA).
  BRITISH PRISONERS (RUSSIA).
  TRADE INQUIRIES ABROAD.
  TRADE INQUIRIES ABROAD.
  DRILL HALL, CHEPSTOW (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).
  DRILL HALL, CHEPSTOW (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NURSES REGISTRATION BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the training and registration of nurses, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, it is my duty to ask you to give a Second Reading to a Bill entitled the Ministry of Health Bill. In doing so I should like to remark that this is one of the first of four important Bills having to do with national reconstruction. The others are the Housing Bill, the Transport Bill, and the Land Settlement Bill, which in one stage or another are now before the Houses of Parliament.
I desire at the outset to say one word which I hope may enlist the sympathy and remove the apprehension of my noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Buckmaster), because I have often heard him descant on the great disadvantage of the additional Ministries that were set up from time to time during the war. I can assure my noble and learned friend that this is not a Bill to increase the number of existing Ministries; because, with the appearance of the Ministry of Health, the Local Government Board as we know it now disappears as a separate entity, and at the same time the Insurance Commission is merged in the Health Ministry. No new hordes of officials will be appointed; nor, naturally, will any more large offices be commandeered in which to house the new Ministry.
I know that there are many among your Lordships who, in introducing a
414
Bill which, though not a very long Bill, was unquestionably one of great importance, might give the House an introduction of a picturesque and interesting nature. For an obvious reason I shall not attempt anything of the kind. Not only that, but I think that the dominant feeling in the minds of most of your Lordships is that this Bill is somewhat overdue. I may also point to the rapid, indeed the eager, passage of the measure through another place; in fact, I think there were no Divisions in the House of Commons itself, though there were some differences of opinion upstairs in what is known as Grand Committee.
Supposing there to be any doubt as to the advisability of the production of this Bill, I think one has only to point to the mass of medical examinations during the last few years for soldiers, to the national service and the recruiting returns, which revealed a state of health amongst our adult and adolescent population which was surprising—indeed I may almost say staggering—and forced home to the public mind the fact that something in the nature of a real organisation to meet the health question was absolutely necessary. Further, those who have experience of educational matters, on school boards and so on, know full well how necessary is the health guardianship of children, and also especially of the prenatal condition of mothers. The new Ministry of Health will be a preliminary or a first step essential for getting subsequently into working order various local and national measures which will, we hope, gradually mitigate the causes of disease and later prevent the overlapping and confusion now existing with a variety of authorities, which overlapping and confusion in time we trust to be able to disentangle and reorganise, so as to render this service really effective in the public interests.
I know that your Lordships are acquainted with these things, because there are many of you who take a real and active interest in county and other government; but perhaps I may name one or two of the various authorities concerned in order to show the complexity of the question. There are the sanitary authority, the Maternity Committee, the Public Health Committee, the Insurance Committee of Doctors, the School Medical Service Committees of local authorities,

415
the Midwives Committee, and others, which list really seems to one almost if not quite bewildering; and if it bewilders us what must it do when these various authorities invade, as is sometimes their duty, the cottage or the tenement house? These bodies will have to be linked up later by another Bill to establish suitable local authorities for health purposes; but in the meantime it is essential, as a first step, to set up a central health authority.
Having said so much, I desire with your Lordships' permission to emphasise the main object of this Bill. The main, indeed the one, object of the Bill is to create a central authority under a Minister responsible to Parliament for all matters concerned with health; and without this preliminary stage, as I will call it, it would be impossible to enter upon and skillfully to devise properly-thought-out plans to deal with the various intricate problems. The new Minister will not abolish, displace, or in any way interfere with local authorities. The intention is that it is to be administrative and supervisory, and that the Ministry shall gather to itself all the main departments concerned with health. I use the word "departments" advisedly as distinct from authorities.
I turn now to the Bill. Clause 2 is explanatory and illustrative, giving generally the powers and the duties of the new Minister in relation to health. It covers all questions relating to health, and also refers to the collection, preparation, and publication of statistics, and so on. Clause 3 covers a very wide ground. You will see that subsection (1) contains a reference to the transfer of all the powers and duties of the Local Government Board, of the Insurance Commissioners, and of the Welsh Commissioners; and later in the clause reference is made to other matters. Further on in the clause there is a power given which enables the new Minister to rid himself from time to time of certain duties and powers not concerned with health which can be better carried out and exercised by some other Department. Your Lordships will also notice paragraph (d), which was inserted in the Bill in the other House and which has to do with children. There was considerable discussion with regard to children during the Committee stage, and in the House itself I think, as to the relative position and responsibilities of the Health Minister and the Minister for Education in regard to health matters—
416
that is, the treatment and inspection in schools. A large section of opinion favoured the idea that this should be at once put under the Minister of Health—that is to say, in that first category to which I referred just now. The Government came to the conclusion that amendment was advisable, and this new paragraph (d) was added to ensure transfer at once to the Health Minister, with the other matters, of the supervision, medical inspection, and treatment of children and Young persons in schools, and to make that clear in the Bill.
I might say here, perhaps, that the intention is carried out in the first two or three lines of the clause. The proviso which follows was inserted on Report to meet difficulties which it was seen would be found in carrying out the decision of the Committee. Lower down there is a reference to the Education Acts of 1907 and 1918—a reference, in fact, which was, inserted in order to make quite clear the meaning of the words "medical, "inspection," and "treatment." I might mention incidentally that this was put in on the Motion of a private Member. The matter really is one of administration and convenience; and noble Lords reading the subsection will see that the division of functions broadly amounts to this, that the Minister will be responsible for determining principles—and this was what was desired in relation to those services—whether the service is necessary, and what standard must be attained in the service from time to time by the authorities who will provide it; while the Board of Education will continue to conduct the necessary negotiations in relation to the administrative aspect of those services, and deal with administrative matters arising from day to day in relation to them.
Now I come to a proviso on a matter which I think many people will consider of great importance. It is in regard to research, and research is not to be merged with the insurance organisation in the Health Ministry. The proposition is that the Research Committee, which (as I said just now) is in the insurance organisation, which is to be merged in the Health Ministry, shall be put under the Privy Council. There has been some discussion on this, and I will try to make my meaning clear. In regard to this most interesting question we have to consider how much medical research can be carried out by the

417
medical staff in close connection with either the Health Department or some other, Department, or whether over a wider field, perhaps a limitless field, of research the most advantageous research can be prosecuted by a body less intimately connected with and less immediately directed I by current administration in health matters; because it must be readily recognised that the field of research is one of boundless possibilities.
At present, as your Lordships know, the various departments—the Local Government Board, Munitions, Control, and so on—do spend a limited amount of money on research, which is done by their own staffs to some extent or possibly through the Research Committee, and it has never been suggested that the fact of the existance of a Research Committee, whether under the Privy Council or any other body, should prevent those Departments from doing their own research work with their own staffs. The present position is that the Medical Research Fund Regulations enjoin on the Medical Research Committee the duty of framing schemes and submitting them, not to the Joint Committee, but to the Chairman of the Joint Committee—i.e., the Minister who is the responsible authority to Parliament. If the Minister approves those schemes the Research Committee is at liberty to go ahead and carry them out, and this freedom has been very much appreciated by the eminent scientists concerned. Possibly one of your Lordships may ask why, if this is so satisfactory, it should be interfered with, but I have, I think, an answer. There are serious difficulties arising out of the construction of the Medical Research Committee which will have to be met when the Central Administration for Insurance I is altered, as it must be, by the establishment of the Health Ministry into which insurance is to be merged.
The Bill establishes a Health Ministry for England and Wales only, with some consequential adjustments in regard to Health Insurance in Scotland and Ireland, but the Medical Research Fund is a fund deliberately set up for dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom. Further, medical research has shown that for really effective work the conditions must be as elastic as possible, and that it should be in active co-operation with all the best scientific activities wherever they may be, in this University or in that, or in any
418
part of the United Kingdom, or Empire or indeed even in a foreign country. Not only this, but also in regard to wider and different ranges of scientific subjects; and I submit that it would cause the Research Committee to fall short of its full usefulness, by limiting its scope and horizon, if it was cramped by being confined to one Department or another, wedded to perhaps some narrow field of administration, and, human nature being what it is, possibly to a Department which might have a certain problem for solution within its own walls, to which it attached importance out of proportion to its general value and which it might pursue to the detriment and exclusion of a larger problem.
A further reason for this freedom is that no one can tell quite where scientific investigation may lead. One result may lead to another and to results quite unexpected and remote from the original field of enquiry, and this, as your Lordships know, by no means infrequently occurs, The Local Government Board has its own research staff, and the Health Ministry will continue to have its own staff, and they will do their work as necessity demands or opportunity suggests. Other Departments will work in the same way, with the Research Committee to advise and to assist them. Perhaps I may say once more that we propose to set up a Research Committee under the Privy Council, with absolute freedom, the Lord President of the Council being the Minister responsible to Parliament. The object is that research should not be cramped or confined or tied up within one Department, whichever it may be, and its usefulness thus curtailed.
One other point which I beg leave to say a word about especially is in regard to what is known as the Consultative Councils to be found in Clause 4. Here, again, there has been a certain amount of discussion. It has been urged that they are unnecessary, as the work has been done and can be done by local authorities or associations of local authorities, and further that such Consultative Councils would displace and render nugatory the best efforts and energies of local authorities. Should that idea exist in the mind of any noble Lord I will do my utmost to disabuse him of it, because, as I have said already, the local authorities will not be displaced or interfered with at all. It is proposed to set up Consultative Councils by Order in Council.

419
Each Consultative Council shall consist of twenty members who shall be appointed by the Minister. Both sexes are to find themselves members of it, and a variety of rules as to the appointment of a chairman, and so on, will be drawn up. The matters on which they will advise the Minister are all questions of health, especially as they concern women, the administration of the Insurance Acts, health, finance and so on; and one aspect, not unimportant I think, is this—that their views will be considered before, and not after, a decision or step is taken by the Ministry or a conclusion formed upon important matters referred to the Council. New matters and old matters in new shapes will be the subject of conference between the Councils and the Minister, and the Minister will therefore be able to keep in touch with advanced opinion and method. Then I may also note this. It is not proposed that these Consultative Councils should represent particular areas or particular interests. It is desired to get the best people, men or women, with the best knowledge and experience, to serve on these Councils without regard to locality or interest, and one naturally fears that by confining selection to an interest or a locality you might make the choice limited and not be able to get exactly the kind of people that you would get with a wider choice.
It is proposed that these Councils should be as follows. First of all there will be a Medical Consultative Council of men and women, with a sub-committee for ancillary services, such as nursing, midwifery, and so on, and this sub-committee will not be limited to the personnel of the parent Consultative Council. Then there may be a Consultative Council for local administration, composed of experienced people recommended to the Minister—for example, by county councils or associations of county councils, municipal corporations, urban and rural associations, and so on. Then there will be a Council for Insurance, of people experienced in these matters, such as now form the Insurance Advisory Committee; and a General Consultative Council somewhat on the lines of what was known as the Consumers Council at the Food Ministry. The Minister will be in the closest touch with these Consultative Councils. Each Council will have its own sub-committees composed, like the Medical Council (as I said just now), of members not belonging to the personnel of the parent Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not necessarily belonging to it.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Not necessarily belonging to it. It is desired by this means to get the widest experience without increasing and rendering too numerous the members of the Consultative Council. As to the effect of these new Councils, I have said that they will not interfere with local authorities. Local authorities, either individually or through local Administration Associations, have in the past been consulted by the Local Government Board. That course will be continued by the new Health Ministry, but with this advantage—that, owing to the special personnel, as we hope it will be, of the Consultative Council, better, more competent, and more affective advice on a variety of matters will be at the disposal of the Minister than was available before. The Health Minister will communicate with the individual local authorities or associations as is done already. Possibly, by the formation of these Consultative Councils, there may be a guard provided against a too rigid so-called bureaucratic leaning, because the obligation on the Minister to establish these bodies is statutory.
The Consultative Councils have a right to offer the Minister advice, and the Minister is under obligation by Order in Council to receive it and consider it. It is advisable to appoint these bodies and to set them to work at once. I know it has been advanced that the Consultative Councils may tend to relieve the Minister of responsibility to Parliament, but I do not think that this need be anticipated seriously in the slightest degree. I venture to think that we may very well leave Parliament to see to that. I may add that this proposal has an analogy or a precedent in the Education Act of 1899, whereby a similar Council was set up for aiding or influencing, if you will, the Central Department by the views of such bodies as the Universities and various types of schools. This secured to the new Board of Education the confidence of these important outside bodies, and this attitude of confidence by these bodies was essential to the successful development of the new Board. The system has proved to be a great success by working admirably. The Teachers Registration Council of the whole teaching profession

421
is another body now similarly advising the Minister of Education. There has been no depreciation whatever of the responsibility of the Minister to Parliament, and I submit that this success is good ground for anticipating the same success in the case I have tried to explain.
As regards Wales, your Lordships know that there is no Secretary for Wales, as there is for Scotland and for Ireland, and of course you also know that there is no autonomy for Wales as separate from England. The Commission for National Insurance has a separate office in Wales, but the Welsh Insurance Commission is under the Treasury and is responsible to the chairman of the Joint Committee in the same way as is the English Insurance Commission. Whatever functions they have in Wales are retained. The functions are merely transferred to the new Minister. Till now the Welsh Insurance Commission has had no separate health organisation in Wales. These powers are not taken away, but in addition to insurance the Minister may arrange for any other part of his powers and duties to be carried out, so far as Wales is concerned, through the Welsh officers who will be known as the Board of Health. These are enlarged powers of that office, and therefore not only will there be a separate body in Wales, but, instead of limiting that body to the powers of the Welsh Insurance Commission, it is proposed to add the other functions of the Ministry of Health.
I should like to say a few words as to the Orders in Council, because I have often heard Orders in Council somewhat criticised in this House. This matter was very fully discussed in the House of Commons, and the clause was amended so as to give more opportunity for criticism. One Order in Council is to fix the dates for the coming into operation of the Act, and one would naturally expect that Parliament would wish that to be as soon as possible. The Consultative Councils are established by Order in Council, the Order being laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for thirty Parliamentary days. In addition to that, if the Order in Council is to provide either for an increase or a decrease in the duties or powers of the Minister, it will require resolutions of approval from both Houses of Parliament. I may also add that the Orders can be amended by either House.
422
Scotland, as your Lordships know, will have its own Health Bill, which will be introduced by my noble friend behind me in a day or two. The Insurance Joint Committee covers the four countries. The chairman is the Minister responsible to Parliament for them, but the situation is changed by the Ministry of Health taking over insurance so far as England and Wales are concerned. The Joint Committee will continue to regulate, for all the four countries, the actuarial and financial matters—that is to say, the medical benefit, and the amounts to be paid per head per area. Therefore this Bill provides that the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland shall be members of the Joint Committee as well as the Minister of Health. The Irish Insurance Commission is retained, and placed under the Chief Secretary instead of under the chairman of the Joint Committee. The Bill also makes the Chief Secretary responsible for health administration in Ireland. It enables Consultative Committees to be set up in Ireland, and also provides for the establishment of a special body called the Irish Public Health Council in order to give assistance and make proposals to the Chief Secretary on health matters. It amount to this—that Clauses 2 and 4 apply to Ireland, plus the Public Health Council.
That is my case for the Bill. With your Lordships' permission I should like to say a word or two about the old Local Government Board. Some four or five years ago it was my duty to ask your Lordships to assist me to pass a Bill for universal service, and I remember thinking at that time, and I may possibly have said so, how much we owed to the voluntary system to which we were saying farewell. The same thing occurs with regard to the old Local Government Board. By the setting up of the new Health Ministry its dissolution takes place as a separate entity. It has served the country very well indeed. The origin and the gradual development of local government in this country has been the responsibility of the Local Government Board for nearly fifty years. It has its critics, of course. Who has not? But compared with to-day local government was unknown fifty years ago. Sanitary administration was also unknown. If we look back to the Public Health Act of 1875, on which sanitary administration rests, and to the Public Health Acts of 1888 and 1894, which were earmarks in the history

423
of local government and which were the foundation of a local administration which, I venture to say, is unsurpassed anywhere, we see the great advance which has taken place in local government and public health administration. The Local Government Board has prepared and paved the way for the Health Ministry which now displaces it, and it has done so in various ways—by National Insurance, perhaps one of the most humane acts ever passed by Parliament; the treatment of children in schools; the provision for tuberculosis and venereal disease, and so on, all of which will in time be concentrated under the new Health Ministry, and the members of the staff of the old Local Government Board will see their work developed in its perfection.
With the dissolution as a separate entity of the Local Government Board comes the retirement of Sir Horace Monro, the Permanent Secretary. Sir Horace Monro has spent a lifetime in the public service. He has been a zealous and courteous public servant, and a fine and true example of the great mass of Civil Servants whose assiduity is only equalled by their loyalty to succeeding chiefs whatever their political leanings may have been, or whatever tenets they may have held. It is these qualities which I venture respectfully to think have made our Civil Service the admiration of the world. With that short, but I hope pardonable, digression I have nothing more to say in regard to this Bill, except to repeat that it is a Bill for the setting up of a central Ministry, or authority, for Health, and that it in no way is to interfere with local authorities. It may be that on some points I may have been a little obscure. If that is so, I will endeavour either later in the evening or at a future sitting to clear away those obscurities. In moving that the Bill be read a second time I have only to thank your Lordships for your kindly patience over a period which is longer than it is usually my habit to address you.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sure your Lordships would all desire me to express the universal sentiment in congratulating the noble Viscount on the manner in which he has performed his task. We are accustomed to hear from him clear and lucid explanations of the different subjects which he is entrusted to set before
424
us. As many of your Lordships know, there is a peculiar propriety in entrusting this particular subject to my noble friend, because he has for many years devoted a great part of his leisure to hospital work and to work connected with health generally. There is, therefore, scarcely anybody in the House to whom we should listen with greater respect than the noble Viscount on this particular matter.
The noble Viscount stated that this measure might be regarded as overdue, and it is no doubt true that the creation of a Ministry of Health has been for a long time mooted and that the proposition has met with almost universal favour. This particular Bill, as my noble friend stated, met with something approaching unanimous approval in another place. It is one of the inevitable misfortunes of the present manner of conducting business that it is impossible for us to be thoroughly apprised of the discussions which took place upstairs in the House of Commons on the details of this measure. Many of your Lordships, no doubt through one means or another, have become acquainted with what passed in Committee, but the publication of those discussions is not nearly as general as that of discussions in the full House, and consequently many of your Lordships may not have followed closely the course of the debates upstairs.
The principle feature of this Bill is the disappearance or absorption of the Local Government Board. Towards the close of his speech my noble friend paid a tribute to that Department, and gracefully laid a wreath upon its grave. He also, with the universal concurrence of your Lordships, expressed the sense of what the country owes to the eminent public servant Sir Horace Monro, who has been chief permanent official there for some time. It is, of course, the principal provision of this Bill that the Local Government Board should disappear and he replaced by a Ministry of Health. It must be nearly two years ago that I heard that it was proposed, by some deeply interested in this subject, to proceed in this way towards the creation of a Ministry of Health rather I than by starting a fresh Department and endowing it with powers, some new and some taken from other Departments. The Ministry of Health was to absorb the Local Government Board, and was then to proceed to shed as rapidly as it could the somewhat numerous functions per

425
taining to the Local Government Board which have nothing to do with health, and that is the course which has now been pursued. But it appears to me to be absolutely imperative, if this measure is to be a real one, that action in this direction should be exceedingly prompt. It clearly will not do to allow this new Ministry to continue to exercise those functions of the Local Government Board related to various spheres of local government and quite unconnected with the duty of a Health Ministry—the holding of public enquiries, for instance, on many different subjects not related to sanitation and health.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Relief of the poor.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Also, as the noble Marquess states, the whole business of the relief of the poor. Unless very rapid action is taken in that direction, His Majesty's Government will find themselves open to the charge, which I notice some Members in another place did attempt to bring against them, that this Bill is in reality only a matter of words and names—that is to say, you call the Local Government Board the Ministry of Health, you place a different name over the shop, but the wares sold are precisely the same, and you will therefore have effected nothing except to add a number of fresh functions to the Local Government Board: That, as the noble Viscount has made clear, is by no means the intention of His Majesty's Government, but I venture to emphasise the necessity for prompt action in this matter lest it should be supposed that the creation of this Ministry is not so real and large a reform as we all hope that it will become.
The noble Viscount mentioned paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 3, relating to the Board of Education. In the consideration of this matter the question of how the functions of the Board of Education in relation to health, which have been most usefully and admirably exercised, by common consent, were to be transferred formed one of the principal difficulties ahead, and I think His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on having solved, as I conceive that they have, with the full agreement of the Board of Education, this matter of medical inspection and treatment in schools. I well remember, during the short time that I
426
was President of the Board, that this appeared to me one of the main difficulties in the road of the creation of an independent. Ministry of Health.
The noble Marquess behind me mentioned just now the duties of the Local Government Board in relation to the Poor Law. It has been familiar to all advocates and observers of social reform for many years past that popular mistrust of the Poor Law had to be met both by legislation and by private agencies of different kinds, and to a considerable extent it has been met. To take the early stages of life first, there has been, as your Lordships know, for sometime past a powerful movement endeavouring to remove the Poor Law taint from the children who have been brought up and educated at the expense of the State. It has been the object of that movement, with no little assistance from the Local Government Board itself, to abolish the great barrack schools in which at one time practically all these children were, I was going to say immured, and to substitute something more nearly approaching the conditions of home life for their education and bringing up. Then, to go to the other end of life, the institution of old-age pensions was designed to effect, and has succeeded in effecting, the freedom for the old age of the poor from what was considered the hardship of Poor Law relief. Then, again, throughout the whole of life the system of insurance has endeavoured to relieve those who are in no position to pay for medical assistance from having to seek medical relief through boards of guardians Therefore the removal of the whole system of relief of the poor from the Ministry of Health is a purpose which obviously ought to be carried out with the utmost possible speed.
But in bidding farewell—if we are to bid farewell before long—to boards of guardians, I have no doubt that my noble friend, or whoever is entitled to speak for the Government on that matter, will desire also to pay a tribute to the admirable work which has been done by so many individual members of boards of guardians—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE:—in inconspicuous but extremely valuable work, which ought not to be forgotten amid the unpopularity which the guardians as an

427
institution have undoubtedly to some extent earned. On the matter of research mentioned in the first proviso of Clause 3, subsection (1), after some consideration I am disposed to think that His Majesty's Government have taken the right course in placing this matter under the Privy Council, and not under the Ministry of Health. It is necessary, as the noble Viscount indicated, to regard research as a whole. Medical research must be in many instances closely connected with research in chemistry and research in physics, and to remove medical research in particular from the general care of the Privy Council, which is the home of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, would, I feel, be something in the nature of a blunder. And although I believe that this provision has, as the noble Viscount said, been criticised in some quarters, I hope that no alteration in this respect will be made in time Bill. There is the further difficulty, which the noble Viscount mentioned, of applying this provision to the whole of the United Kingdom if the Ministry of Health were made the controlling authority for research, and that is a further argument, I venture to think, in favour of retaining the Bill as it stands.
The noble Viscount gave us a clear statement about the Consultative Councils proposed in Clause 4. We were able to gather from what he said that there would be several of these bodies, and to a certain extent what their method of operation would be, although I do not know that I was able entirely to picture to myself the manner in which they would work. The noble Viscount admitted that it had been feared in some quarters that the creation of these Councils might to some extent detract from the responsibility of the Minister. I think there is a certain danger of that if the Councils are made large and powerful bodies. I do not think that the analogy of the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research can very well be prayed in aid, because that body does, in fact, represent the Department, and in the main is the Department. The noble Viscount, however, suggested that the Consultative Committee on Education might be regarded as a useful precedent. No doubt it can to a certain extent, but on the other hand its scope was exceedingly limited. The Reports that it has published have been, it is true, of great importance and interest, but
428
it has never been supposed or believed in itself to influence or to attempt to influence the policy of the Department. And if it is clearly understood that the Consultative Councils are as limited in their operation as that, I do not know that much objection could be raised. But it has sounded rather as though they might be more important bodies than that in some sense—much larger, and designed, so to speak, to sterilise beforehand all the opposition which might be raised to particular administrative acts of the Ministry by roping in the principal critics beforehand. I should like to know how far the members of the Councils would be at liberty afterwards to express in public, if they so desired, divergent views from those of the Ministry, or whether they would be regarded as to some extent an appanage of the Ministry, and therefore, once a conclusion has been reached, that they would be bound to hold their tongues on the subject for ever after. If the scope of these Councils is of the more limited kind, I can quite understand that they might serve a very useful purpose.
I have not intended in these remarks to go through the whole Bill, and I will merely confine myself to again congratulating His Majesty's Government upon having produced what ought to prove a most useful and practical measure when it is in operation, and to congratulate once more my noble friend on the manner in which he moved the Second Reading.
LORD DOWNHAM: My Lords, as one who took part in the proceedings which resulted in this Bill, and as one who either as Parliamentary Secretary or as President of the Local Government Board during the last few years took a very prominent part in local administration and local government in this country, I am not unnaturally desirous of making a few comments upon this Bill. I may say that I was immensely relieved that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill did not claim for it that, although it was to be part of the large measures of reconstruction, it was likely to lead at once to a new heaven and a new earth.
Too much has been claimed for this Bill, and too high expectations have been formed of a rapid improvement in the health of the people from the mere setting up of a Ministry of Health. This Bill will lead to the greatest possible disappointment unless it is followed by a

429
new and improved public health policy, by a new and improved Poor Law, and to a very large increase in our hospitals, our sanatoria, our clinics, the numbers of our well-educated and re-educated doctors and surgeons, the numbers of our nurses, and all the different human agencies which contribute so very largely towards public health. I have often heard it said that proverty and misery are to be removed from the face of this earth by these measures of reconstruction. Poverty will not disappear by perorations nor misery by mere machinery. The public health of our country has been a plant of very gradual growth, and it will continue to be so notwithstanding the setting up of a Ministry of Health. I am glad, indeed, that the noble Viscount paid such a handsome tribute—though none too handsome—to the splendid work that has been done during the last fifty years by the Local Government Board, which was set up in 1871 in order that it might be the great Public Health Department of this country.
I will not apologise to your Lordships for quoting a few figures as to the marvellous improvement that has taken place in the public health of this country and in the expectation of human life since the Local Government Board supervised our public health system. Recollect that the population of England and Wales has grown from 22,000,000 to 36,000,000 since the Local Government Board was established in 1871, and that the greatly increased population of this country has been congregated in urban areas. Notwithstanding this fact, the health of the whole nation has been enormously improved. The death rate, which was 21·4 per thousand in 1871, in 1916 was 13·3. The highest figure was 21·6 in 1875, and the lowest 13, in 1912. Sir Arthur Newsholme, one of the greatest administrators of public health we have had at the Local Government Board—I am sorry to say he has now left us—in his recent Annual Report showed that the deaths in each year from 1910–12 averaged nearly 250,000 fewer than they would have averaged had the death rate of 1871–80 continued. Not only has the death rate been so markedly lower but the expectation of life has been enormously prolonged. In 1871–80 the expectation of life in the case of males was 41·4 years; in 1910–12 it was 51·5 years—that is, in that period of 40 years 10 years have been added to the expectation of life. Taking the figures for females, they are respectively 44·6 and
430
55·4. I believe it can be proved that these figures constitute a higher expectation of life than is to be found in any other European country.
As one who was President of the Local Government Board, I wish to say that I regret immensely that many of the advocates of the Ministry of Health—I myself am an advocate of the Ministry—have in their zeal for setting up this Ministry thought it necessary to paint the picture far too black with regard to the public health of this country, and to make out that during the last forty years practically nothing has been done by the Local Government Board or by the local authorities. That picture is not true. I regretted very much when the Prime Minister said, in his great speech at Manchester, that he doubted whether there was a first-class country in the world where less had been done to organise the forces which made for the health of the nation. He was immediately taken up in the Press by Mr. Shadwell and others, who had made a comparative study of the question in-every civilised country, and who had come to the conclusion that, while there was great room for improvement in this country, England was the best off in regard to public health and sanitation, and that it could be stated truly that in no country in the world had so much been done as in England.
During the last forty years we have been pouring out Acts of Parliament relating to public health, trying in every way to cleanse our polluted rivers, directing the expenditure of millions of money through our local authorities on water supply and health functions of all kinds, and that work has been generally supervised by the Local Government Board. From my own observation, even during the four years of the war, I can say—I will take only two matters—that the Local Government Board in every way did its duty to carry out a great public health policy in this country. I will take first venereal disease. Up to 1916 there was no public policy at all for the treatment of venereal disease. Up to that time there were only three lock hospitals, and few others, to which men and women could go to be treated for this disease. Even taking into account the difficulties of obtaining doctors, surgeons, and nurses during the war, no less than 140 centres were set up in two years, acting through the agency and under the direction of the Local

431
Government Board, for the treatment of this disease. No less than 55,000 new patients sought this treatment in 1918.
I take in the second place maternity and child welfare. Maternity and child welfare is a policy which has done and is likely to do more for the practical health of this country than any other measure I know if it is persistently carried out. It was originated only in 1907, and in 1914 there were comparatively few centres and only 600 health visitors. There are now 1,400 centres and 3,000 health visitors. All that work was being rapidly pushed along, even during the war when the Local Government Board was largely engaged in war work. I can speak from personal knowledge when I say that no better team work was done by any body of public servants than was done by Sir Horace Monro, Sir Noel Kershaw, Mr. Willis, Sir Arthur Newsholme, Mr. Simmonds, and men of that type. No men deserve more the tribute which has been paid to them than that particular group of men. If we welcome the coming host, let us at least speed the parting host; and let us say of them and to them how much we praise them for the good work they have done in the direction of public health.
I come now to a few criticisms upon the Bill. The Bill so far as it goes is undoubtedly a good one. Its main feature is that it fuses the great preventive side of medicine—carried out through the various local authorities and the Local Government Board—with the great curative side, the National Insurance Commissioners. That is the great point of this Bill. I am very glad that the noble Viscount particularly said that this was only a preliminary measure; because I am going to point out that after all it is only a machine which is created, and a very limited machine. Take Clause 2. Any ordinary layman reading that clause would think that it gave to the new Minister of Health most comprehensive powers and duties which would enable him to take all such steps as might be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures for the health of the people, including measures for the cure and prevention of disease. But, as a matter of fact, that clause really is very little but window-dressing. It gives the new Minister of Health no new powers of any sort or kind. That was expressly stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Govern
432
ment Board when he was discussing this measure in Standing Committee A. Many members of the Committee were under the impression that this clause gave the new Minister of Health very large powers. No, said the Parliamentary Secretary. He continued that, as there was some doubt about the clause as drafted, he desired to explain it. There was no intention whatever, he said, on the part of his right hon. friend to give or to take or to try to give or to take any new powers. All that this clause does is to impose upon the new Minister the duty of taking a personal interest in matters appertaining to health. It will not necessarily transfer to him such matters for instance as medical education. He will continue to do as he has been doing in the past—namely, keep in touch with any person responsible for medical education. Nothing is more important than that we should have a far better system than we have got at present of educating our doctors and re-educating them.
There was a very admirable speech made on Saturday last by Mr. Morris, the House Governor of the London Hospital, at the forty-fifth annual meeting of the Hospital Saturday Fund, and amongst other things he said that it was at the hospitals that the future doctors who would have to work all the Departments were trained, and that it was the tone which they caught at the hospitals that was going to influence the work done for the health of England for the next ten years. He added that the British Hospital Association had resolved that the hospitals should remain voluntary, and should focus their attention upon the education of the future doctors, the treatment of cases that were extremely difficult, and the advancement of research. He added further—
"All these things the future doctor must learn, and the Minister of Health must recognise that hospitals were the only places where the doctors could receive their education."
He then went on to make a very wise suggestion—namely, that general practitioners ought to have the right to walk their own hospitals again for two or three months every year.
Again I ask, Does this pretentious clause give the Minister of Health any power whatever over the voluntary hospitals which must remain the training grounds of our medical profession? Doctors and surgeons should be able to renew their education mid to find out what has been

433
done, what new methods and systems have been adopted, instead of being buried away in different villages and towns and unable to renew their education because there are no opportunities or facilities for doing so. What I say about this is that under Clause 2 the Minister of Health has no power whatever to redirect the whole system of medical education, and no power to afford doctors or surgeons the right to re-enter hospitals.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: He can make a grant.
LORD DOWNHAM: I know of no power by which he can make a grant. This matter is under the great Act of 1886, and so far as any Government Department has any powers of this kind those powers reside in the Privy Council, which has power to nominate five out of the General Council of twenty or thirty which regulates all these matters of medical education. Those powers of the Privy Council are not even taken over under this Bill by the Minister of Health. Therefore I say it is one proof to my mind that the Bill is not a sufficiently big Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will address yourselves to making it, if possible, a little bit bigger and larger.
I have desired for some time, if we were to have a Ministry of Health Bill, that it should be a bigger Bill than this, and that the period for taking over many of the powers belonging to other Departments should be accelerated. We used often to hear that the great argument for the establishment of a Ministry was that health matters were now more or less controlled by twenty different State Departments, and that it was most necessary to unify control at the centre. My complaint is that this Bill does not do that enough, or go fast enough in that direction, and I think we might very well consider in Committee some Amendment by which to accelerate the process. I observe that the present President of the Local Government Board is a little shy of taking over any new powers at all. I have always been in favour of the Ministry of Health taking over all the powers which now reside in the Board of Education as regards the medical treatment of the child, and I have never seen any reason why you should compartment the child in regard to medical matters. I have never been able to understand that up to five years of age a child should be under one set of doctors;
434
that after five and during the school age, which may be fourteen but possibly now may be up to sixteen or later, he should be doctored by doctors who come under the direction of the Minister for Education; and that after leaving school his health should be under the control of another set of doctors acting under the central control of a Minister of Health or of the Local Government Board. I rather hope that your Lordships will look carefully at the Amendment passed by Standing Committee A and see whether that Amendment was not more effective than the Amendment introduced afterwards on the Report stage by the present President of the Local Government Board.
There are one or two other comments which I should like to make before I part from that clause. One of the other arguments used for this Bill was that there were 1,800 local authorities, and it has been said for some time that it would be far more efficient and economical if we devised new areas for these new public health functions and activities. I believe that is so—that the small areas are unsuitable for the new public health duties, and indeed for other public duties—but this Bill does not touch that question at all. Then, again, Dr. Addison, in introducing this Bill, said that one of the matters that he most desired to deal with was the prevention of malnutrition, and he stated that at least half a million children in this country were suffering from malnutrition. I hope the figures are not so large, but I would like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill what words—and in what clause—give the Minister of Health any power to deal with that matter. I know of none.
Again Dr. Addison said, in answer to an interruption from Sir Edward Carson, that under this Bill the Minister of Health would be able to deal with the blind, the deaf, and the dumb. I have always wished that some Department should undertake the general supervision of these people, and I did my best when President of the Local Government Board to bring the blind under my Department. But what words are there in this Bill which will enable the Minister of Health to deal with the blind, the deaf, and the dumb? I know of none. Then he dwelt very much on bad health due to improper conditions of work in the workshop and the home, but I see no clause or words in this Bill—certainly there is

435
nothing in Clause 2—which will enable the Minister of Health to have cognisance of any of these things, although Dr. Addison said these things should come under the cognisance of men who have to deal with health matters. Again, there are some words used of a very attractive and alluring character in Clause 2—that it will be the duty of the Minister of Health to attend to the training of persons for health services; but I see no clause or words which would give any power or duty, other than the President of the Local Government Board now has, of attending to the training of doctors or nurses or any of those human instruments which are so necessary if we are going to improve the health of the people. That is all the criticism I have to make at present on that clause, and I say that the Bill will effect very little unless it is followed by other Bills—unless it is treated as a preliminary and speedily followed by other Bills with very much enlarged grants by which we may have a more satisfactory system of hospital sanatoria, well-educated doctors, and so on.
As to Clause 3, which deals with the transfer of certain duties from the Local Government Board to some other Departments, I hardly think it ought to be possible to transfer by Order in Council a large set of duties such as those now attached to the Local Government Board in connection with the Electoral Registers of the country, the franchise of the country, and all those matters which have been enormously developed ever since the Representation of the People Act was passed. I think that when we come to deal with the transfer of powers from the Local Government Board to other Departments because it is now turned into a Ministry of Health, we should scrutinise the matter carefully and see that some of the greater powers are only transferred if we have a full knowledge of the Department to which they are to be transferred, the circumstances under which they are to be transferred, and those who are likely to administer these very important duties.
Lastly, I come to Clause 4, dealing with Consultative Councils. The noble Viscount was very interesting on Consultative Councils, and he was the more interesting because there is nothing in the Bill which really does say all that he has told us about them. When we come to that clause I am afraid I shall be very inquisitive. I shall want to ask in more detail how many of these Consultative
436
Councils are to be set up; how they are going to be appointed; of whom they are going to be composed; what is going to be their tenure of office—that is very important for a statutory body—what powers they are to have; what payment is to be made to them; and what is likely to be the total cost. I cannot help thinking that we may be embarking on a very expensive policy, if we are going to set up these Committees—each Committee, as we are told, to have its own sub-committees—and if we are going to pay all their expenses in going from place to place, pay them subsistence allowances and for all their so-called loss of time. That seems to me to be a system of subsidising which is likely to lead us to a large expenditure.
It we set up these Committees to deal with local government it will be very difficult to resist the claim, which I see is being made by the new Labour Party in the London County Council, that they should have their travelling expenses allowed and should be paid subsistence allowances and for loss of time. I do not see how you can have one body of men dealing with local government affairs sitting at the Local Government office and paid their out-of-pocket expenses, and another body of men a few hundred yards away who are doing still harder work with no particular inducement to do it except love of country and real patriotism but who remain unpaid. There are other matters also which will have to be raised when we come to Clause 4. I think it is a serious consideration if we are to set up these statutory bodies, which are not dependent in the least for their positions on their election or any-thing of that kind, whether you are not undermining to a great extent the responsibility of the Minister in charge of the Department.
I think we shall have to criticise that proposal from many points of view, and I hope the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will, with that courtesy which ever distinguishes him, give us information, which I believe is to be obtained, by some White Paper showing the number of Committees to be set up, how they are to be composed, their tenure of office, and their payment; and, if necessary, give us something like an estimate of the whole cost of this new and expensive machinery. I conclude, as the noble Viscount concluded, by expressing once more my own gratitude, not only as ex-President of the Local

437
Government Board but as a public man, for the splendid work that has been done by the Local Government Board and its officials in promoting the public health of the people, and I can only say that if this Ministry of Health in fifty years has attained anything like as distinguished a record for progress, it will have deserved its title and its name.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, when the noble Lord who has just sat down rose to address the House I gladly gave way to him, because I was very anxious to hear what he would say about this Bill. He has not exactly stood up for the old state of things, but he certainly has not shown himself in love with the new. His blessings upon the Bill, for which the noble Viscount is responsible in this House, have not been of a very emphatic character. There were one or two things which the noble Lord said which certainly did seem to be very hard. He reproached the Bill for omissions. For instance, he said that the training of doctors, the future arrangements of sanatoria, where they should work, the giving of refresher courses to general practitioners, were matters which ought to have been included in the scope of the Bill. It has been my fortune to preside over two Royal Commissions and a Committee on the subject, and I never heard any responsible witness or any doctor make the suggestion which has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord.
The training of doctors and the future enlargement of their course is a very great subject and one which requires to be dealt with, but it belongs to a totally different service from that of health. It belongs to the service which is performed by the Universities and the great medical schools, by great institutions like the London Hospital, with which my noble friend Lord Knutsford is associated; certainly not to anything in Whitehall or to an organisation ruled over in the interest of a special service which is quite different from that of education. These are matters which belong to education and not merely to health as such. Then the noble Lord spoke of areas. Is it quite clear that areas should be mentioned without touching other questions? There have been the strongest recommendations lately that they should be dealt with by a Department which would hold the scales more evenly between the various Departments connected with areas. Whatever Ministry of
438
Justice we may have in future, it seems to me that the question of areas would belong to the supervision of that Ministry rather than to that of local government.
Now I come to what the noble Lord said about the work which the Local Government Board has done in the past. No doubt it is quite true, as he says, that there have been great improvements in the statistics in regard to health. Things are better than they used to be. There is less illness, and the prospects of life are longer. Excellent work has been done by the Local Government Board. My complaint is of the smallness of its quantity. The real improvement is due to the splendid public spirit of the local authorities to whom the duties have been confided. It is to local government that England owes the great. development in health conditions to-day, and not to a Department which I am sorry to say was not famous in the past either for its provision of associates for its own guidance or for the way in which it endeavoured to get together the materials for the discharge of its duties.
The noble Lord said one thing which was very much to the point. He said that the care of public health was very scattered and broken up among a number of Departments. That is absolutely true, and that is the reason why greater progress was not made. The very strength of the Bill, the very point that distinguishes it altogether from the spirit of the old Local Government Board, is that it does in Clause 2 (which is important for that reason) lay down a principle. The principle of the Bill is to take the service of health and treat it as a service by itself; disconnect it altogether from all the other Departments of the State, where, as the noble Lord truly said, it has been too much scattered about.
Consider the state of things to-day. The miner is working in the mine. He may be in peril of his health and life from new diseases which have only recently been come to be understood, and which can only be dealt with by persons who are skilled in their operation, and conditions of life. In the factory conditions may be very bad, the atmosphere may be wrong, the temperature may be wrong, and the moisture present may be exercising a deleterious effect. All these things can be known only by the health expert. In all the industries of the country you find work for the health

439
expert. Who does the work to-day? It is done by the Home Office. We show our sense of what the Home Secretary has to do with such questions of health by not providing him with any proper machinery for the purpose. The inspectors under the Home Office do their work admirably, but they are not trained for this particular purpose, and it is by accident that they have developed the great skill with which they combine their functions. They look after the question of "truck," the question of production; and these things, together with the health of the people, are combined in one set of men, who do the work very well no doubt. To a large extent they must continue to do it in the future, but not as the servants and officials of an Office which has nothing to do with these things, which has not to provide for the development of the proper spirit in regard to public health, and which takes up these things only as a result of accident.
I have taken one Department and shown how public health was largely in the hands of the Home Office. No wonder the Local Government Board was rather a feeble body as regards the care of health. What could it do? It could not interfere with work which came under the Home Office; nor did it interfere. It was confined to a class of question which may be said to concern the environment of health, rather than health itself. It had, no doubt, very valuable functions as regards sewers, which were carried out by the local authorities throughout the country, but that is only a very small fragment of the health question, although a very important one.
Take another Department—the Board of Education. It has a great deal to do with health, and even in connection with Health Committees a great deal of the work has been done by grants from the Board of Education. At one stage the rivalry between the Board of Education and the Local Government Board became so acute that when I occupied the Woolsack I had to decide between the two Departments as to what was the precise line of demarcation between the functions of the Board of Education and those of the Local Government Board on questions of health. It does not stop there. The Privy Council has a fragment of health administration. The noble Earl the Leader of the House is fortunately relieved by this Bill from the supervision of midwives. I congratulate him. But that is only an illus
440
tration of how another Department was vested with matters of health with which it had no business whatever to do. I could multiply these instances further. It comes to this, that the general words of which the noble Lord complains, and which charge the new Minister to give his attention to all questions connected with public health, really do declare a very great principle—namely, the principle that no longer are we to have scattered fragments, or weak Departments, such as the Local Government Board of the past was, but that we must have a Ministry which shall gather together health subjects and service, and administer that service without let or interference from other Departments.
The first principle of the Bill is that for the future there will be a single service of health, and not a lot of scattered services. The second principle is that the work is to be founded upon knowledge and research. The Local Government Board was deficient in this respect. Now knowledge is given a place; thought is the preliminary to action. It remains to be seen how the new Minister will develop it. That is the duty confided to him. One of the great fragments of health unaccounted for was that under the Treasury. It was in the hands of the Insurance Commissioners, but I think the Treasury was their master. The Insurance Commissioners had among other things to undertake research, and I entirely agree that medical research has been most properly kept away from the Ministry of Health and given to the Privy Council.
This Bill sets up a Ministry of Health for England apart from Ireland, and Scotland is to have a separate Bill. The question of research is a national one, and is not limited to any of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and it would have been very narrowing and very wrong had it been placed under a local body. Exactly the same considerations apply as led to the taking away from the Board of Education of the Department of Industrial Research and transferring it to the President of the Council. I am bound to say this I hear murmurs—I wish the noble Earl who leads the House was in his place—that it is not possible for him, with all his duties, to give adequate attention to the questions of research which come under him. Now you are transferring another Department, a very admirable

441
Department, under Sir W. M. Fletcher, to the President of the Council, and. I hope it will be possible for the Minister (who is, in this case, the noble Earl) to give that attention which so supremely important a matter requires. It is a branch which seeks to make knowledge for the future the foundation of action, not in one but in fifty spheres. I think if the noble Earl finds that his duties here and in the War Cabinet take up so much of his time that he cannot identify himself more with the great subject which in an increasing volume is being entrusted to his charge, it will be well that the office of Vice-President of the Council should be re-created. I do not mean an incompetent Vice-President; I mean a competent Vice-President, who would deal with these questions of research in a fashion which would inspire confidence in the public.
The third great feature in the Bill is that it proceeds on the footing of devolution. I do not think that until recently people in this country have quite appreciated the real value of the local government institutions which they possessed. The real strength of our local institutions lies in our county and borough councils. The best type of these bodies were developed by the Board of Education. There is a statutory committee in each of these local authorities to which was entrusted the work of carrying out the policy of the Board of Education. There you have a single service of functions concentrated in a single Department, and its execution carried out by devolution to the proper statutory committee of these bodies. As I understand, that is exactly the course which is proposed to be taken under this Bill. The Poor Law will presently disappear—it will require some more legislation, but the policy is announced—by being broken up. One of the fortunate things which Sir Donald Maclean's Committee on local government was able to do was the reconciliation of the two Reports, the Majority and the Minority, and now a system of analysing Poor Law relief into its separate heads, a large part of which consist of health, is carried out. The Poor Law will disappear, and with the Poor Law the boards of guardians, and there will come in possibly two other committees which will be statutory committees of the local authorities by whom these duties are to be carried out. That is the third great principle which is in this Bill, and that is what commends the Bill to me
442
and makes it what seems to me to be a very effective Bill.
But I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to what has been said already, that the great evil is left to the accident of circumstances under this Bill. No doubt the policy is there. I do not think Lord Downham quite appreciated what large powers there are here if the Houses of Parliament approve of the Orders in Council. Although there is power under this Bill to take the whole of those services of health which at present are under the Home Office, and to which I have already alluded, there is no provision for exercising that power, and some adjustment will have to be made in regard to the Home Office. When you have taken these large powers from the Home Office, and when you have also taken some of its protective control for the purpose of coal reforms, as probably will be done, you will have to have a Ministry of Mines and there will be little left for the Home Office to do unless there is a very large devolution of duties connected with the administration of the Courts of Justice. I am not, of course, alluding to the appointment of Judges, or to the custody of the Great Seal, but I am alluding to the great mass of administrative work which belongs to the service of justice and to nothing else, and which I think the Home Secretary might well make his principal concern, relieving himself of all health and production matters. The Bill provides for the transfer of the health part of his duties, but of course that will still leave to be dealt with the wider problem to which I have referred. That will still be untouched and unsolved, and you will find that it will plunge you into a very large re-arrangement of the reorganisation of Government generally. That is quite right. I am far from not wishing to see it come about; I only point out that there is a good deal in the criticism that this Bill is a Bill drawn on the future.
National Insurance is a very big business, and that is being taken over. I think before the war that there were eleven and a half million persons under National Insurance in this country, and my recollection is that there were sixteen thousand doctors and ten thousand registered chemists. That in itself is a pretty big business for the new Minister to manage with the aid of his staff, even though the research part has gone to the Privy Council. There will be added a good deal of health

443
and maternity work from the Board of Education, and therefore I cannot myself feel much sympathy with the complaint that there are not enough duties to the Minister under this Bill, or that the draftsman was otherwise than justified in introducing a rather pompous declaration of principle. It is the very thing that was wanted to show what has got to be clone, and the only complaint is that, with the enormous volume of work that is going to be transferred, there is some uncertainty not only as to when it will be done, but as to what further consequences on other Departments it will entail.
Allusion has been made to the training of doctors, and I strongly am of the view that that belongs to another service altogether—to education. It is for the Universities and the great Medical Schools. But it does touch very closely public health, and I hope that by means of Consultative Committees and by close co-operation between Departments the Ministry of Health will keep in relation with all the bodies which do medical training. And I am not confining myself merely to the civilian doctors. I have had in my time a good deal to do with that admirable body, the Army Medical Service, which has enormously improved itself in the last ten years. My noble friend Lord Midleton, I think, gave it its first start, and it has gone on steadily since that time. Nothing could be more disastrous to the Army or Navy or Air Service than that the training of its doctors should be separated from the great and increasing stream of knowledge, and the great and increasing recognition of new duties and new spheres of work which belongs to the medical profession, and I hope to see a time when the Army, Navy, and Air Medical Service will all be looked on rather as groups which have taken place within a common atmosphere than as independent organisms with nothing to do with each other. How that is to be worked out this is not the moment to speculate, but the views which I hold on this subject are shared by most prominent men connected with those Services, and it may well be one of the interests of the new Minister to keep watch upon the wider views which are growing up about the medical profession and its tremendous sphere of activity in this country, and to see that the sporadic growths cease as far as possible to be sporadic.
There is one criticism which I wish to
444
make in conclusion, and it is this. When this Bill left Grand Committee in the House of Commons it left it with a proviso to the effect that in the appointment of the staffs for the purpose of carrying out the work of the Ministry of Health there should be no discrimination merely on the ground of sex. Nobody wants to say that you are to appoint women merely because they are women. I am as much against that as anybody can be. I am also very much against the principle that a discrimination is to be made on the ground of sex of a general character. It may be quite right to appoint to some position a man because he is more fit, but do not merely, when a women might serve just as well as a man, discriminate against her merely on the ground of her sex. I bring that forward because at the very commencement words laying down the principle that there should be no discrimination on the ground of sex alone was in the Bill when it left Grand Committee in the other House and was struck out on Report. And on whose motion? Not on the motion of the Minister of Health, whom the noble Viscount represents here, but upon the motion of the Secretary to the Treasury.
The Treasury has always had the most conservative notions about women coming into the Civil Service. Two or three Committees have reported in favour of the principle, but the Treasury, I think, clings to the hope that the Committee over which Lord Gladstone is presiding will say something which will justify it in its attitude of obstruction to the principle which was certainly recognised at the last Election and which is now a settled part of our Constitution, that although you may say as regards a particular appointment that women are not so suitable for it as men, yet as regards other appointments men are not so suitable as women. When it is an appointment for which either sex is eligible, discrimination on the ground of sex should not be made. That is the principle which the Treasury will not accept. I shall certainly move in Committee on this Bill the same Amendment as had been carried in Grand Committee in the other House, and I trust that the Government will not allow themselves to be swayed at the dictation of the Treasury, but will treat the matter on the broader ground on which it was treated by the Minister of Health himself, and which led to the words being in the Bill until a retrograde step was taken at a later stage. I have already occupied your

445
Lordships longer than I intended, but the matter is one of profound interest. This Bill opens up new prospects, gives us new ideas, gives us new chances; and, for my part, I warmly hope that it may have all the success which its most enthusiastic advocates have hoped for.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I had prepared a long speech on this Bill which I will save you from, as so much has already been said. But I want to take this opportunity, which is the last one we shall have, of stating one or two things which we shall expect from the Minister of Health, and which I may not have another opportunity of saying. Many of us have had very high hopes from what this Bill would bring forth. We have felt that any money spent on the health of this nation is the very best money that the country could spend, looking at it only as a speculation. And, as by fir the most important organisation in England to-day affecting the health of the nation is the Medical Research Department, I am rather alarmed to see that that Department is taken out of the duties of the Minister of Health and handed to the Privy Council.
The Minister of Health takes over all the duties of the National Health Insurance Commission as regards the health of the nation, and the Medical Research Department was one branch of National Health insurance, and got all its money and its income from the National Health Insurance Commissioners. So you realise that, when this is handed over to the Privy Council, you are taking away from the Medical Research Department the whole of their income. That I do not mind, but I think it is an extremely good thing, as Lord Haldane has pointed out, that the Medical Research Department should not be under the Minister of Health.
I hope, however, that we shall have some assurance from the Government that this Medical Research Department is not going to be stopped. At the present moment the miserly grant that they get is only £50,000 a year, and that to-day is probably worth about £30,000 to £40,000. Why, they save the whole amount that they receive in one Command—the Eastern Command—on one disease, in one year. They save £50,000 in treating what is called D.A.H. (which is an affection of the heart) in one year, in one Command of
446
the Army. The country was paying at one time £1,000 a week to poor girls poisoned by T.N.T. This Medical Research Department saved that by investigating and finding out the cause, and stopping it. Therefore, I do hope and pray that when this Department is turned over to the Privy Council it will be treated adequately and properly.
Perhaps when we first read this Bill we were a little disappointed. Our hopes had been raised very high, and when we came to see that, after all, it was only a Bill transferring the duties of the Local Government Board to another Department, which had the power of playing battledore and shuttlecock with any duties which it did not like and turning them over to somebody else, we were perhaps inclined to be a little disappointed. But I do not think that the noble Lord who spoke as representing the Local Government Board in the past need be so very unhappy, because he is not lost; he has only, as the tombstones say, "gone before." The work that the Local Government Board has done has set a good example to the Minister of Health, and will be followed and improved.
But, though we might have been disappointed at first, I think there is no other solution to the question. It is impossible to dig out from the Local Government Board only the health powers, and to leave the others untouched, and this solution is really the best one—to hand over all the powers to the Minister of Health, and give him power to delegate some of them, if he finds it necessary to do so. But we shall not be content unless the Minister of Health—and very soon—brings forward some better Bill than this. This is only an enabling Bill.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: He is given very great powers under it, but the country will expect very soon that the Minister of Health should bring forward a Bill taking more powers upon himself. He has got these powers, and we shall not be content that he should simply carry on a glorified Local Government Board. We want something better, and he has powers to do it, and I think we have a right to expect it.
But there is one very important power which has been added to the Minister of Health, and that is when he takes over

447
the duties of the National Health Insurance Commissioners—the health part of it. He takes over the whole of the curing of the insured part of the nation. That is the largest curative branch that has ever been put under one Department. Twenty thousand doctors are now placed under the Minister of Health, and we shall be very disappointed indeed if the Minister of Health continues the very low standard of healing that is obtained by the country from panel doctors—and I want to say that with all the emphasis at my command. The term "panel doctor" to-day is ridiculed by the country. It is not the fault of the doctors; it is because the power given to them is so very limited. All that a man gets, if he goes to a panel doctor, is just what a general practitioner can give him, and nothing more. Whenever any one needs an operation, whenever any one has a serious illness, whenever any one needs the help of a specialist, is it right that the whole of the nation should depend upon charity for that? They are dependent to-day on the voluntary hospitals alone; that is the only place they can get that. The voluntary hospitals have done their best under very difficult conditions, but naturally they have totally failed to meet the wants of the nation. That is a thing that we shall expect from the Minister of Health—to improve the medical attention that the country is getting and paying for.
What is wanted is a very careful survey of the country, area by area, setting out what facilities the people have for getting the help they want and how they can get it, and the prevalence of illness in those districts. That must be done, and must be done at once. All your Lordships who live in the country know as well as I do, and a great deal better, the enormous difficulty of getting surgical and medical help for a man who is seriously ill. It is a real difficulty; he might almost be in a foreign country, it is so difficult to get it for him. That must be remedied. I want to say so from my place here in order that the Minister of Health may know that there are a good number of people really feeling that very much.
It is very necessary, of course, that we should improve the preventive side of medicine as well as the curative side. All that the panel doctor is now concerned with is treating the number of people in his district; and the more he treats the more
448
he gets paid. I do not complain of that. But there is not sufficient attention being paid to the normal person, to the early stages of disease. There is nothing of this sort done in the country, and that is another thing to which the Minister must turn his attention. There is no real Intelligence Department. We have heard from the noble Lord who represented the Local Government Board the extraordinary improvement in the health of the nation; but we have also heard recently from the Medical Boards in this country that, when the greatest possible pressure was put upon them to get every one they could into the Army, only three out of every nine men were fit to serve, and we know that those three have been sent to the Front and a very heavy toll taken of them. Therefore I do not feel inclined to be comforted by the statistics given as to the improvement in the health of the nation. We know that of every 10,000 children born five years ago only 8,000 are alive to-day. The amount of infant mortality in this country which is preventible is something like 1,000 per week. All those matters we cannot allow to drift any more if we care for our country, and they must at last be attended to by a man who is appointed to focus his attention upon the health of the nation. We need not be dismayed in connection with this Bill by the prophets of evil. There will always be prophets of evil in regard to every change. If their prophecies come right it is our business to remedy the evils; if they do not come right, what is the good of wasting time listening to them? I want this Bill to pass unanimously, and I want it to go out to the Minister of Health that this great House of Parliament is behind bins in every earnest endeavour to do anything to add to the happiness and the health of our people, and towards the better efficiency of our workers.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, as I had the honour of proposing a Resolution in this House not very long ago, which your Lordships were good enough to adopt unanimously, confirming the principle of a Ministry of Health, perhaps I might be allowed to speak for five minutes only in order to support the spirit of everything which has fallen from the noble Viscount who has just sat down.
I sincerely hope that the new Minister of Health will be considered by Parliament and by the nation as one of the first Ministers of the Crown, and that he will

449
have a responsible representative in the House of Lords—such as the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill—in order that we may be able to ask Questions and to get authoritative answers to them instead of having Questions about health referred from one Department to another. I suggest to the new Ministry that, unless the whole spirit, of what they are going to do is accompanied by a desire to combat ignorance and to increase knowledge in this country, they will fail in the task which it is expected they will accomplish. We have heard this afternoon some exceedingly able speeches with regard to the machinery of the new Bill, and as a member of the general public, regard this Bill as only of a preliminary nature simply enabling the Minister to gather into his own hands certain powers which exist already But this Minister in the future will have to reckon with, and should be proud of the knowledge that he will be supported by, an increasing, instructed, energetic, patriotic, totally disinterested. public opinion in this country—such as the members of the Birth Rate Commission and kindred bodies who are largely responsible for creating this Ministry. He will have to reckon with that opinion, and with the determination that the powers of the Minister of Health will not be allowed to remain on the level of those of a glorified sanitary inspector, or something of that kind. We shall expect the Minister to Acquire and to dispense knowledge; and there are those outside Parliament who will see that he is kept up to the mark in that respect. I am not saying this by way of a threat. I only wish the now Minister (in the words of the noble Viscount who has just sat down) to know that in any progressive step he takes and in any new powers for which he asks from Parliament he will receive the support of all enlightened public opinion in this country.
There are many instances which one could easily give with regard to the desirability of acquiring more information as to the state of the nation. I speak under correction, but I believe that the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths has no official cognisance of an exceedingly important public matter—namely, the number of still births in this country. I believe I am also right in saying that Sir Bernard Mallet is working under the old Statute of 1836; and I hope that one of the first projects which the new Minister will take
450
in hand will be to collect and to publish for the information of Parliament and the nation an anthropometric survey with regard to the physical condition of the nation, so that we may at least know what is the matter and what it is that we want to tackle. It is sincerely to be hoped that there will be a permanent policy of this kind.
I am not going to deal at any great length with the question of research as that has been thoroughly gone into this afternoon. Provided that the Government are determined upon a policy with regard to research—that is to say, placing it in those hands which will give to research the greatest possible scope, I shall be content; but, perhaps, when the Bill comes up for consideration in Committee we may further consider this matter. I think it is a truism that we do not want in the future only to acquire knowledge. We want to dispense knowledge. Dispensing knowledge does not mean giving people cream and cod-liver oil for nothing, and applying ourselves to symptoms. It means that we shall look to the Minister of Health to educate the public with regard to the prevention of disease and to place within the reach of everyone the knowledge how to live a decent and healthy life. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, if I rightly understood him, said that he thought it should not be the function of the new Ministry to educate the doctors; that this was more appropriate to the Universities and kindred institutions of that kind.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The great medical schools.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I understand that; but it is not too much to expect that in the near future the Ministry of Health should be looked to by the nation in this matter, and it is to be hoped that it will occupy a very great position in this country and be the body to which Parliament and the country can appeal with regard to the instruction of the whole nation, whether practitioners or Members of Parliament or the general public. Therefore it is surely appropriate that the new Ministry of Health should at least be responsible for such machinery that all the latest knowledge should be open and available to all practitioners

451
whether doctors or masseurs, or whatever they may begin this country.
Now we come to the education of a body which I suppose is still of some importance in this country, and that is the education of Parliament, with regard to matters of public health; and I say that in the absence of a Minister of Health it is positively lamentable that at this time of day a Bill like the Dogs Protection Bill, flying in the face of the whole scientific knowledge of this country, should be allowed to pass through the House of Commons and let loose the floodgate of criticism upon a subject which is res judicata. That has happened because we have no one in the position of a Minister of Health to stand up and speak the truth from the place of authority. I hope that the Bill will come to the House of Lords in order that we may have the satisfaction of throwing it out. Then I say this, with the deepest respect to those responsible for advising His Majesty as to honours in this country, that we have had honours list after honours list published in this country, and with the exception of one or two noble Lords whom I will not mention, except to bring forward the names of Lord Lister and Lord Kelvin, we have, and I stand corrected if I am saying that which is not true, no representative of medical science in this House at the present moment. We have by a fortunate accident, and as an instance of the hereditary principle, the advantage of the great knowledge and experience of Lord Knutsford, but we have not seen the medical profession ennobled and given a seat in your Lordships' House; and I say, with the deepest respect to those responsible for advising His Majesty, that I hope we shall have some members of the various branches of science given a seat in the House of Lords.
If it is important to educate doctors and Parliament it is exceedingly important, and indeed much more important, to educate the general public, and it is sincerely to be trusted that the new Minister will leave no stone unturned to educate the general public with regard to the laws of health. When I say this I do not mean by Blue Books or by carefully prepared answers by Secretaries of State to undefined questions in the other House of Parliament, but I hope that be will unhesitatingly publish the truth with regard to the prevention of disease, no matter how unpopular it may appear to be. It is far
452
too important a subject to become the plaything of public favour and public prejudice, and if the Minister of Health fearlessly publishes the truth he will create public opinion upon which alone can rest his authority. Something appeared recently in The Times over the signatures of the greatest medical authorities of the country, with regard to the treatment of venereal disease, but you cannot at this time of day bring the British public to submit to what savours of bureaucracy unless you have the justification of having first given them the necessary knowledge. If you have published the knowledge, then you will have behind you the support of public opinion in taking steps to give that knowledge popular effect. I say without hesitation that the more progressive the Minister of Health becomes the more he will create a public opinion which will exalt knowledge and apply it, and he will occupy in this country the primary function of Government, which is to preserve the health of the people.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I have listened to the eloquent speech addressed to your Lordships by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, upon a subject about which he is eminently fitted to instruct us, and I am sure that the spirit in which he asked us to approach this Bill will inspire our consideration of it at all its stages. I hope, however, that in supporting, as I am sure we shall most heartily, the principle of the Bill, we shall not be deterred on the Committee stage from applying such criticism to its several provisions as may be helpful in making it a measure of really practical utility.
We who have to apply in the counties the provisions of various Acts dealing with health will, I am sure, welcome a measure such as this which will unify at the centre all the various authorities that have to do with health matters, but I venture to hope that if unification is to take place at the centre something in the nature of greater unification will take place among the various administrative bodies throughout the country and their several officials. I look with some alarm at subsection (4) of Clause 6 of this Bill, which seems to contemplate the retention of all the officials of all the various departments which are sought to be unified by this Bill. I should have thought that, as in the case of amalgamated

453
businesses, a large number of officials might be dispensed with—those who would be regarded in business circles as representing overhead charges or standing expenses.
As regards Clause 4, which deals with Consultative Councils, I am bound to say that I see two possible objections to this Cause if it is passed in its present form and if discretion is left to the Minister for the time being to apply these provisions as he himself thinks fit. I cannot help feeling that these Consultative Councils will form an undesirable buffer between the Ministry of Health in London and the various local authorities which have to carry out the provisions of health measures in the country. At any rate, I think it is a matter which will require to be watched very carefully. If the administration of health is in fact to be efficient there must be no sort of friction engendered between local authorities on the one hand and the Ministry of Health on the other.
There is another objection which I see to this clause, and it is that I am afraid it may tend to divest the Minister of Health of full Ministerial responsibility. During the war we have been conversant with the existence at the various Departments of Committees or Councils of this character. I always listen with some regret to the pronouncement of a Minister who appears in any sense to shelter himself behind the advice given by bodies of this sort. I myself sit as vice-chairman of a body of this character. the Central Agricultural Advisory Council, and I am bound to say that I have often heard a policy defended on the Ministerial Bench as having been approved by the Council to which I refer, when, in fact, there has been—if only our proceedings were published—considerable hostility shown or at any rate considerable criticism directed against the proposed Government policy, although in the long run it has not been thought desirable to carry to an extreme such opposition.
I venture to hope that these Consultative Councils will in no sense deprive the Minister of such responsibility as is rightfully and properly his. I do not quite understand from this Bill as drafted whether the Minister is a person who necessarily would be in one of the two Houses of Parliament. I hope that he will be, but there is no provision which seems to render this necessary. On the
454
other hand, there is a provision which rather suggests the multiplication of Parliamentary representatives, to the effect that no less than two Secretaries of the new Department shall have seats in another place. As I read the Bill it is at any rate open to the Government' of the day to place two Secretaries of this Department in the House of Commons, even though the Minister of Health at the time may be in the same House. If I may venture to say so, I think that is quite an undue multiplication of subordinate Ministers.
I, for my part, welcome very much the proposal to leave research out of the sphere of work of this new Department and for this, if for no other, reason—that there are many Departments which are carrying on in watertight compartments work that ought to be aggregated or ought to be judged by some independent authority in its several relations. For instance, there is a good deal of work being done by the Board of Agriculture in the sphere of veterinary science, comparative physiology and therapeutics which, in other countries, is far more closely associated with research work for the benefit of human beings than is found to be the case in this country. All that, to my mind, ought to be dealt with comprehensively in some absolutely detached Research Department, which is not necessarily confined to inquiry into questions affecting human health.
The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill referred to certain Consultative Councils which had already been decided upon. I hope that one of them will be an Agricultural Council, for there are many matters, notably those connected with the purity of milk, upon which the practical advice that agriculturists would be able to give might result in preventing the Ministry of Health from attempting, on the advice conceivably of, shall I say, theoretical faddists, what might prove a positive damage to the public health rather than its improvement. I have in my mind particularly a crusade now being conducted, with which the Local Government Board appears to have some sympathy, against what is called "Dirt in milk" on the one hand and "Disease in milk" on the other.
I should like to remind your Lordships that if either of these problems is tackled on the lines which the enthusiasts would advocate, they will have, somehow or

455
other, to demolish something like 50 per cent. of the cow-sheds in this country and slaughter at least 50 per cent. of the milch cattle, no less than half of which are known to react to the tuberculin test. There is a danger of this Department being ruled by faddists unless great caution is observed in the constitution of these Consultative Councils. I do not want to take up the further time of your Lordships in comments upon this Bill, but, in giving a hearty support to the principle of the Bill, I trust that the Government will not object to our moving in Committee Amendments which some of us may feel to be of a helpful character and calculated to render the actual work of the Bill more easy than some of us think it would prove with the Bill in its present shape.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, I should like to refer to Clause 2 for one moment. The noble Viscount, Lord Sandhurst, stated that it was not intended to interfere with local authorities. I think it would be a disaster if there was any interference with the policy of administration and treatment at hospitals. As I am associated with one, I know that it would be impossible to carry on the administration if one were going to be perpetually interfered with as regards treatment, and so forth. I do not imagine for a moment that it is the intention of the Bill or of the Government that there should be such interference, but I wish to have some assurance on the matter, more particularly after what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Downham. I began to feel more nervous than I already was as to whether there would be a construction of the wide powers which would affect us in this way. If you read the clause it is very difficult to get away from the fact that at any rate the powers of the Ministry are undoubtedly very wide. Although it may be possible to move Amendments which, accepted by the House, may clear up the whole matter, I certainly think the Bill in that respect does want to be made clearer, so that we should know not only what the Ministry can do but what the Ministry is going to do. If the Ministry took such powers it may be pointed out that they did not intend to use them. I am afraid such an argument as that from the chairman of a company to the shareholders would hardly hold good. He would say, "We have taken powers to do this and to do that, but the shareholders need not be alarmed as we have no inten
456
tion of doing this or that." The clause is so wide as to be misunderstood by a large section of the public, and they do not understand what is intended to be done. I have no doubt this may be remedied in Committee, but I would like to know from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he can give an assurance that, although the new Ministry may act as an advisory body to hospitals, they have no intention of dictating the policy, administration, or treatment which will be given at such institutions.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF: My Lords, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the most important and necessary Bill now before us. I was a little startled by the words of the noble Viscount in introducing this measure when he said that it was not intended in any way to interfere or supersede any local authority. I am not quite sure what is meant by that. My fear is not that of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but is of quite a different character. Surely the Minister of Health, if he is to be entrusted with these large powers, must in some cases interfere with and supersede local authorities, and unless he has power to do so, and is prepared to do so, I am afraid his efforts will in many cases prove vain. We recognise that many local authorities are cluing magnificent work and can be well trusted to discharge all their functions, but there are other local authorities who are not doing so and who need to be interfered with occasionally. I think that the Minister of Health will find it necessary in some cases to intervene and see that the local authorities do carry out the duties that now belong to them. I suppose that if the Minister of Health carries out his duties under Clause 2 he will find it necessary to enter into questions concerning the provision of sanitation in many localities. It is well known that in certain cases the sanitary provisions are not carried out owing to the inefficiency, the indifference, or hostility, of members of the local authority. Surely there must be some power to see that these provisions are carried out.
There is another case. The noble Viscount told us that a Bill dealing with housing is about to be introduced. I do not know exactly how far the Ministry of Health Bill is going to deal with housing. If there is one thing more than another which affects the health of the country it is the question of housing. I suppose

457
that the Minister of Health will be able to intervene in cases concerning the sanitary condition of houses that new exist, and also as to the exact position and soil on which new houses are being built. There are many cases I know of where houses have been built on what are absolutely insanitary positions leading to a great deal of disease and a great deal of what is undesirable in every way.
I wish briefly to refer to one other point. It is in Clause 5, which deals with Wales. I do not want to suggest, anything that would weaken the powers of the Minister of Health or to suggest that anything should be done which would lead to the appointment of a local Secretary in Wales, but I cannot help thinking that the clause can be slightly amended in a way which would encourage and develop local interest in the subject of national health and call out the local powers and interests in a way which would be highly desirable. I have no doubt that when the House is in Committee a few slight Amendments may be made which would help to strengthen the Bill and make it more valuable than it is.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, with the object of this measure it is plain that the whole of your Lordships are in complete agreement. I think many share the view, which I hold myself, that the only real objection to the Bill is that it does not go far enough. The object of the Bill is to disseminate knowledge, to enforce obedience to the laws of health which, after many thousands of years occupation of this planet, the human race is only just beginning dimly to understand. I should like to have seen some better provision made in the Bill to enable our knowledge of these laws to be extended. If all that the Bill is to do is to administer knowledge, as we now possess it, the authorities may tend to become stereotyped, and we may find ourselves with this great Ministry doing what so often happens in other Government Departments, relying on the old principles and the old practices and resisting any attempt to introduce the new. That is what I feel about the main purpose of the Bill.
I should like, if the noble Viscount would permit me, to add one thing further about the character of the work that is going to be done. One of the most important dirties, to my mind, that the Ministry of
458
Health can undertake in connection with this Bill will be the control of advertisements relating to patent medicines and foods. Unless it is done through this Ministry it will never be done at all; and the reason is this. The value of the advertisements of these patented articles is so vast that there is no journal, which dare expose the mischievous character of these preparations for fear of finding its profit and loss account coining out on the wrong side. The only opportunity of combating this mischief is by such a Ministry as this, and I should be glad to see powers of that kind expressly given in order that it may be known that it is the desire they should be exercised. It should be borne in mind that some of these patent medicines are deliberately deleterious.
For example, the feeding of children by patent foods for children is, in the case of many children, a positive damage to their health, and the best that can be said about most of them is that they are innocuous or doubtful, and that there are very few about which it can be unhesitatingly affirmed that their consumption by people, except under medical advice, can do anything but mischief. I do think this is a matter of very great consequence indeed; and I hope, if the noble Viscount is not satisfied that this Bill does in fact confer the necessary authority upon the Minister, he will take steps so as to secure that it does.
Finally I want to say this—it relates to a matter to which the noble Viscount referred in introducing the measure—that anxious as I am to see this measure pass into law, I still think it would have been well had the Government been able to adopt a suggestion that I made some time back and see what was the total limit of all the expenditure to which they were committed, and what were the means they should adopt to provide the revenue for the payment of these expenses. This Bill of itself might very well pass without that criticism, but the noble Viscount told us that it is nothing but the forerunner of a series of Bills which are going to place grave and heavy charges upon the Exchequer; and even after reading what took place in the other House last night I find myself utterly unable to understand how the Government propose in the future to meet the expenses that these Bills will entail. I think that before the Ministry is established there ought to be proper pro

459
vision made for their housing, and that we ought not either to have to commandeer an hotel or put the staff into an hotel which has been first commandeered and then evacuated, or to erect for them new buildings in some suburb, as we saw from a statement in the newspapers the other day was being done with regard to some of these dispossessed Departments. The passage of this measure ought to be used as a means of accelerating the clearing out of the existing bodies. I do not know if the Local Government Board can be induced to give up its offices, or the Home Office to do so, but some place should be put at the disposal of this Ministry before this Bill is made operative in order to avoid what is to my mind a very grave public danger, the illimitable multiplication of Government Departments and Government buildings with all their staffs, and the difficulty that increases every day of enabling this country to get free from the burden of bureaucracy, to which I do not think they will ever tamely submit.
LORD BOSTON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment, but I ask to be allowed to say one word upon Clause 5, which has already been referred to by the right rev. Prelate. Clause 5 is the provision relating to Wales. I believe it is a provision that will cause profound dissatisfaction to a large section of Welsh public opinion. It is to be presumed that this clause has met with the approval of those who represent Wales in another place. If so, I can only say that it is a matter of very great surprise that that should be the case. Your Lordships will notice that this clause lays it down that the Minister shall appoint such officers as he may think fit to constitute a Board of Health in Wales, through whom he may exercise, in such a manner as he may think fit, any of his powers and duties, and further that the Board and any officer who is a member thereof shall act under the direction and comply with the instructions of the Minister. It seems to me that a Board constituted in that manner will be the creature if not the slave of the Minister, and will possess no powers of initiative and no powers of control, and will have a very slight chance of voicing the opinions of the people of Wales on so grave and important a subject as this. I think it is a matter for regret that Wales has not received in this Bill more generous treatment than is the case.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I wish to be allowed to say a few words by way of a very short comment on two or three things which have been said. In the first place, I think I may fairly say that I cannot possibly be dissatisfied with the reception that the Bill has received at the hands of your Lordships. We have listened to an exceedingly interesting and also, I think I may say, a very informing debate on a variety of subjects that are raised by the Bill.
With regard to the speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, I understand that there will be no need whatever for securing large and palatial premises, because the staff will be housed where the Local Government Board is; indeed, a great many are already there. I wish to impress upon your Lordships that this is a Bill for the purpose of setting up a central authority so as to enable it to do a great many of the things by way of administration which have been referred to by various speakers. The right rev. Prelate mentioned something about local authorities being interfered with. As I endeavoured to make clear, there is a great variety of these various local authorities, and they overlap and constitute a vast network of administration, and it will be the endeavour hereafter to disentangle them in the hope of making them still more useful to the public than they may be at present.
My noble friend Lord Downham, whose criticisms I naturally listened to with great respect having regard to his experience in these matters, wished for definite information of a detailed character about the Consultative Councils. My noble friend must have overlooked the Memorandum on the Ministry of Health Bill which was a Command Paper and was circulated. I do not know whether my noble friend has had an opportunity of seeing it. I think in some respects it will give him a good deal of the information he asked for.
LORD DOWNHAM: I did not know that applied to the four or more Consultative Councils that are now to be set up. I did not even know that had been discussed in another place.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I think the noble Lord will find in the Appendix a good deal of the information he asked me for. Lord Haldane suggested that he would

461
move an Amendment in regard to the sex discrimination question, and I would prefer not to pronounce upon that until I see my noble friend's Amendment in print. My noble friend at the Table (Viscount Knutsford) said a good deal regarding the hospital question and the need that exists at the present time for hospitals in London and elsewhere. The noble Lord behind me was very anxious that hospitals should not be interfered with by this Bill. As a matter of fact, this Bill does not touch hospitals. This Bill sets up a central authority without which we cannot do the things that are required, and which can only be done by improved organisation. I myself know well the lamentable waiting lists that exist at the various hospitals, and if in time we find that there must be more hospital accommodation, more mast be provided; but that, again, belongs to a more advanced stage, to what I may call the second phase. It we get the central body established we can then proceed to reorganise the health of the country as we desire.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke who was rather afraid that the Minister of Health might take unnecessary time in perfecting his arrangements. I can assure the noble Lord that the present Minister, the President of the Local Government Board, needs no spurring whatever; indeed, he was extremely anxious that I should have got through this Bill hutch sooner so that he could proceed with the work. Owing to other legislative business and the holidays, however, it was impossible to proceed earlier. I do not think noble Lords need be under any apprehension in that regard. One or two noble Lords have suggested lines upon which they may move Amendments, and I can assure them in no conventional terms that any Amendments which they table will receive the full and respectful consideration of the Department. I beg to thank your Lordships for the cordial welcome you have given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (MEDICAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN) (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ECONOMIC POSITION OF AGRICULTURE
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to put the Question standing in my name on the Paper, which is the first Starred Question that has been put in this House. It is, to ask His Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, it is proposed to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the economic position of agriculture consequent upon the operation of the Corn Production Act, and with whom the appointment of its members will rest.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, the Government propose to set up as soon as possible a Royal Commission to inquire into the economic position of the agricultural industry, with special reference to the probable prices of corn, meat, and milk, and the probable costs of their production. I am informed that the Minister in charge of the Department concerned arranges with the Prime Minister as to the terms of reference and the constitution of the proposed Commission. I am unable to state the exact terms of reference to the Commission or its constitution.
LORD BLEDISLOE: May I ask the noble Lord whether we may expect at an early date to have the terms of reference and the personnel of this Commission, and whether, when they come to sit, a time-limit can be set upon their deliberations, within which they will make their Report?
LORD ERNLE: The full details will be given as soon as possible.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of April 30.]
BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK.
Petition of Herbert Guedalla, of 1, Broad Street Place, in the City of London, and Grigori Benenson, of 4, Moorgate Street, in the City of London, praying for leave to present a Bill to vest in and transfer to a Company to be incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1917, the assets and liabilities of the London Branch of "the Russian and English Bank," and certain other property; to define the rights of the shareholders in the Company so to be incorporated, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1aand referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Rates).

Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council.

London Electric Railway.

West Hartlepool Corporation.

Dover Gas.

East Ham Corporation.

Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
St. George's Church, Oxford.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on the 2nd instant, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.

HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter-past seven o'clock.